Originally Posted by
framer
The point is that Mrdeux technically/ legally could have landed on 16L, but chose to require 16R. There is a line which is different for every Captain, and when that line is crossed they start looking for ways to stack the deck in their own favour. That is good. That is how it should be. I imagine every single pax that Mrdeux has flown has landed and taxied in safely. Job done. The risk we run now days is that the noise abatement and flow control etc etc is so prescriptive and so common that we get used to the tail wagging the dog and feel we have to fit in to the system in all cases except an emergency. In my opinion the safest runway should be used regardless the of the time of day or which suburb we fly over.
It is an interesting debate in that if the safest runway was used all the time, then during single runway operations due to too much tailwind on the other runways (max 5kts dry runway or 0 kts for other than dry), the other runway could not even be used for requests.
ATC do not ask for a reason on air for an operational requirement because we don't have the skills, knowledge and all the information the pilot has in determining whether this is the case. We trust the pilot's judgement in this.
I would suggest it is similar when ATC advise that a certain runway is "not available". Pilots do not have the information that ATC has in assessing this. Sometimes the ATC who advises the unavailability also doesn't have the information in the reason why either. It's about trusting the knowledge and judgement of others who do and moving on to the next task to keep the whole show moving.
Forums like this are good for digging into the issues a little and famil time in ATC & cockpit environments are even better.