B737 PIC comments on his alleged problems obtaining his runway of request without being intimidated ...

Attributes
ACN	622365
Time
Date	200408
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : cle.airport
State Reference	OH
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 msl single value : 4000
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : cle.tracon tower : skbo.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : intermediate altitude descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : cle.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : taxi
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 15000 flight time type : 10000
ASRS Report	622365
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	conflict : ground critical non adherence : required legal separation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Miss Distance	vertical : 100
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Situations
ATC Facility	other physical facility procedure or policy : cle.tracon
Airport	procedure or policy : cle.airport

Narrative:

On initial contact with approach we advised we needed runway 24L for aircraft type and weight. Switched to final controller and he said expect runway 24R. We again advised needed runway 24L. He said expect extended downwind or holding for runway 24L. We said ok. 27 DME from airport we are 'cleared to join localizer runway 24L. However, you may expect to be pulled off approach or go around if tower cannot fit you in.' once again I say we need runway 24L. I do not expect intimidation by ATC into taking their runway choice. It is my job to make the safest decision and it is ATC's job to make it work. At assigned speed we crossed FAF and contacted tower, 120.9. Tower cleared us to land runway 24L. About that time air carrier Y was landing runway 24R. He was told to hold short runway 24L for landing traffic. At about 300 ft AGL tower cleared air carrier Y to cross runway 24L. Since he had been stopped for a while it took a few seconds to get rolling. There is no way tower should have crossed that aircraft. At about 100 ft AGL, and as air carrier Y was clearing runway 24L, tower said 'air carrier X, go around.' I said 'air carrier Y is clear, do you still need us to go around?' just in case there was something I did not see. Tower said, 'land.' there are 2 issues here. The clear evidence of intimidation by approach to get us to accept runway 24R, and the unsafe crossing of an aircraft in front of us to necessitate the pre-warned go around from approach control. I will not accept runway 24R/6L in an 800/900 series aircraft as GS intercept landing distance is 4983 ft. Since we are trained to follow the GS, that is the landing distance I will always use when calculating, if I can, use a requested runway. I spoke to ATC supervisor and he said that a controller will never ask you to hold or pull off approach for runway 24L. The mindset needs to be changed at cle ATC into not intimidating pilots into unsafe sits.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 PIC COMMENTS ON HIS ALLEGED PROBS OBTAINING HIS RWY OF REQUEST WITHOUT BEING INTIMIDATED BY APCH CTLR AND SUBSEQUENT SEPARATION PROBS WHEN LNDG RWY 24L AT CLE.

Narrative: ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH WE ADVISED WE NEEDED RWY 24L FOR ACFT TYPE AND WT. SWITCHED TO FINAL CTLR AND HE SAID EXPECT RWY 24R. WE AGAIN ADVISED NEEDED RWY 24L. HE SAID EXPECT EXTENDED DOWNWIND OR HOLDING FOR RWY 24L. WE SAID OK. 27 DME FROM ARPT WE ARE 'CLRED TO JOIN LOC RWY 24L. HOWEVER, YOU MAY EXPECT TO BE PULLED OFF APCH OR GO AROUND IF TWR CANNOT FIT YOU IN.' ONCE AGAIN I SAY WE NEED RWY 24L. I DO NOT EXPECT INTIMIDATION BY ATC INTO TAKING THEIR RWY CHOICE. IT IS MY JOB TO MAKE THE SAFEST DECISION AND IT IS ATC'S JOB TO MAKE IT WORK. AT ASSIGNED SPD WE CROSSED FAF AND CONTACTED TWR, 120.9. TWR CLRED US TO LAND RWY 24L. ABOUT THAT TIME ACR Y WAS LNDG RWY 24R. HE WAS TOLD TO HOLD SHORT RWY 24L FOR LNDG TFC. AT ABOUT 300 FT AGL TWR CLRED ACR Y TO CROSS RWY 24L. SINCE HE HAD BEEN STOPPED FOR A WHILE IT TOOK A FEW SECONDS TO GET ROLLING. THERE IS NO WAY TWR SHOULD HAVE CROSSED THAT ACFT. AT ABOUT 100 FT AGL, AND AS ACR Y WAS CLRING RWY 24L, TWR SAID 'ACR X, GO AROUND.' I SAID 'ACR Y IS CLR, DO YOU STILL NEED US TO GO AROUND?' JUST IN CASE THERE WAS SOMETHING I DID NOT SEE. TWR SAID, 'LAND.' THERE ARE 2 ISSUES HERE. THE CLR EVIDENCE OF INTIMIDATION BY APCH TO GET US TO ACCEPT RWY 24R, AND THE UNSAFE XING OF AN ACFT IN FRONT OF US TO NECESSITATE THE PRE-WARNED GAR FROM APCH CTL. I WILL NOT ACCEPT RWY 24R/6L IN AN 800/900 SERIES ACFT AS GS INTERCEPT LNDG DISTANCE IS 4983 FT. SINCE WE ARE TRAINED TO FOLLOW THE GS, THAT IS THE LNDG DISTANCE I WILL ALWAYS USE WHEN CALCULATING, IF I CAN, USE A REQUESTED RWY. I SPOKE TO ATC SUPVR AND HE SAID THAT A CTLR WILL NEVER ASK YOU TO HOLD OR PULL OFF APCH FOR RWY 24L. THE MINDSET NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AT CLE ATC INTO NOT INTIMIDATING PLTS INTO UNSAFE SITS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

B737 PIC comments on his alleged problems obtaining his runway of request without being intimidated by approach controller and subsequent separation problems when landing runway 24L at cle.