Narrative:

I witnessed the following at the new york TRACON in the jfk sector. Jfk landed runways 31R/31L; departed 31L the entire night shift until approximately xa:30pm when it was decided by FAA management that we would change to landing 4R; departing 4L and 31L. This new runway configuration ensured that every arrival to jfk would need to land with a direct 22+ knot crosswind; even though we have 2 runways that were perfectly aligned into the wind. Additionally; the 4R braking action was reported as 'fair' by a B757. The change to this configuration was made to accommodate departure traffic with two runways instead of one. This is a very common 'tactic' used by the FAA to expedite traffic. On many occasions; FAA management turns a blind eye to safety; and imposes these runway configurations; disregarding the prevailing winds and other factors such as runway conditions; wind shear; and tailwinds. Tonight's use of this setup created an especially difficult and potentially dangerous situation for aircraft arriving jfk. An hour into this operation; there were 25+ knot gusts out of the northwest and peak wind reports of over 30 knots. With such strong northwest winds and somewhat questionable braking action; runways 31R and 31L should have been used the entire evening. I personally spoke to five different pilots; each questioning the use of this runway configuration. They each complained about the strong crosswind; noting the fact that they also had to contend with the fair braking action on 4R. The first two aircraft continued their approach for 4R despite their dissatisfaction with the runway configuration after being told by management it would be a one hour delay for 31L. Another aircraft held for approximately 20 minutes until 4L was made available as it had good braking action. The last two aircraft refused both 4L and 4R stating they could not land with the crosswind and the braking action report. Both were given 31L. It appears that the FAA is putting capacity before safety by catering to the airlines desire to expedite departures at the cost of the arrivals safety. The pilots are put in a terrible position and are forced to operate their aircraft in a potentially and avoidable unsafe environment.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: N90 controller voiced concern regarding runway configuration decision; claiming capacity sometimes has priority over safety.

Narrative: I witnessed the following at the New York TRACON in the JFK sector. JFK landed Runways 31R/31L; departed 31L the entire night shift until approximately XA:30pm when it was decided by FAA management that we would change to landing 4R; departing 4L and 31L. This new runway configuration ensured that every arrival to JFK would need to land with a direct 22+ knot crosswind; even though we have 2 runways that were perfectly aligned into the wind. Additionally; the 4R braking action was reported as 'FAIR' by a B757. The change to this configuration was made to accommodate departure traffic with two runways instead of one. This is a very common 'tactic' used by the FAA to expedite traffic. On many occasions; FAA management turns a blind eye to safety; and imposes these runway configurations; disregarding the prevailing winds and other factors such as runway conditions; wind shear; and tailwinds. Tonight's use of this setup created an especially difficult and potentially dangerous situation for aircraft arriving JFK. An hour into this operation; there were 25+ knot gusts out of the Northwest and peak wind reports of over 30 knots. With such strong Northwest winds and somewhat questionable braking action; Runways 31R and 31L should have been used the entire evening. I personally spoke to five different pilots; each questioning the use of this runway configuration. They each complained about the strong crosswind; noting the fact that they also had to contend with the FAIR braking action on 4R. The first two aircraft continued their approach for 4R despite their dissatisfaction with the runway configuration after being told by management it would be a one hour delay for 31L. Another aircraft held for approximately 20 minutes until 4L was made available as it had GOOD braking action. The last two aircraft refused both 4L and 4R stating they could not land with the crosswind and the braking action report. Both were given 31L. It appears that the FAA is putting capacity before safety by catering to the airlines desire to expedite departures at the cost of the arrivals safety. The pilots are put in a terrible position and are forced to operate their aircraft in a potentially and avoidable unsafe environment.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.