A CE560 APCHING TEB ON THE VOR DME-A WAS FORCED TO LAND RWY 19 WITH A 320 DEG WIND AT 15 GUSTING 26 AFTER REQUESTING RWY 01 AND BEING REFUSED.

Narrative

ON FEB/THU/07; AT XA15 LCL WE WERE ON APCH TO TEB VIA THE VOR DME-A APCH CIRCLE TO LAND RWY 24 (PER ATIS). ATIS WINDS WERE 320 DEGS AT 15 KTS GUST TO 26 KTS. APCHING THE ARPT ON THE VOR WE WERE INSTRUCTED; TO OUR SURPRISE; TO LAND ON RWY 19. WE REQUESTED RWY 1 TO LAND INTO THE WIND. WE WERE TOLD BY TWR THAT SINCE WE WERE AN IFR ARR WE HAD TO USE RWY 19 OR RWY 24. WE KNEW RWY 24 WOULD HAVE A 25 KT XWIND COMPONENT IN THE GUST AND WE COULD SEE IT WAS STILL COVERED IN SNOW. TWR TOLD US IN THE DISCUSSION THAT IF WE INSISTED ON RWY 1 IT WOULD RESULT IN AN EXTENDED DELAY IN HOLDING. AFTER A QUICK PAUSE; MY CAPT ELECTED TO LAND RWY 19 DUE TO THE SNOW ON RWY 24 AND OUR SCHEDULE AND FUEL STATUS. RWY 19 HAD A 19 KT XWIND COMPONENT AND A 16 KT TAILWIND COMPONENT IN THE GUST. A 10 KT TAILWIND STEADY STATE. THE ARGUMENTATIVE NATURE OF THE TWR CTLR AND HIS ALL BUT REQUIRING US TO LAND ON A RWY WITH ONLY FAIR BRAKING AT BEST AND; A 10 MPH TAILWIND GUSTING TO 16 KTS IS NOTHING SHORT OF RECKLESS AND NEGLIGENT. OUR AIRSPD ON FINAL WAS +/-10 KTS AS WELL. IF TEB TWR CONTINUES THESE DANGEROUS PRACTICES THEY WILL SURELY CONTINUE TO RUN ACFT OFF OF THE END OF THE RWY. IN OUR CASE; RWY 1 WAS AVAILABLE; IN USE FOR VFR ARRS AND WOULD/WAS THE ONLY FAVORED RWY. IN A CIRCLE TO LAND SITUATION; THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR HOLDING AND TO THREATEN US WITH IT WAS UNETHICAL AND WRONG.