Narrative:

We were on approach to runway 27L in altitude. ATC had us on approach behind a medium large transport. The medium large transport looked too close to both me and the captain. It also appeared that we were closing. We were assigned 180 KTS to the marker. The captain asked our distance from the traffic of the approach controller. The controller said, '3 mi.' the captain said, 'we would like increased spacing.' the controller said, 'how much?' the captain said, '4, preferably 5 mi would be good.' the controller said in a petulant voice, 'turn to a 180 degree heading.' we were put out in a box pattern and placed behind other traffic. An authorization to slow to approach speed would have sufficed. It appeared we were being punished for a judgement call. While taxiing in, we were asked to contact the tower supervisor. When the captain called he was asked if he intended to complain about his treatment. The captain told him no, but explained the situation. The supervisor argued with him re: his judgement and insisted he should have been able to notify them sooner. I witnessed another incident in the recent past when at dfw an air carrier aircraft was told to clear the runway when he requested 1 min further sep behind a heavy jet that had just taken off and was 5 mi ahead. He was punished by being placed behind several other aircraft. The message I am getting from a group that is supposed to support the safe operation of my aircraft is: you make a judgement call for safety reasons and we will punish you for messing with our system.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR WDB F/O'S COMPLAINT ABOUT ATC HANDLING DURING DESCENT APCH INTO ATL.

Narrative: WE WERE ON APCH TO RWY 27L IN ALT. ATC HAD US ON APCH BEHIND A MLG. THE MLG LOOKED TOO CLOSE TO BOTH ME AND THE CAPT. IT ALSO APPEARED THAT WE WERE CLOSING. WE WERE ASSIGNED 180 KTS TO THE MARKER. THE CAPT ASKED OUR DISTANCE FROM THE TFC OF THE APCH CTLR. THE CTLR SAID, '3 MI.' THE CAPT SAID, 'WE WOULD LIKE INCREASED SPACING.' THE CTLR SAID, 'HOW MUCH?' THE CAPT SAID, '4, PREFERABLY 5 MI WOULD BE GOOD.' THE CTLR SAID IN A PETULANT VOICE, 'TURN TO A 180 DEG HDG.' WE WERE PUT OUT IN A BOX PATTERN AND PLACED BEHIND OTHER TFC. AN AUTHORIZATION TO SLOW TO APCH SPD WOULD HAVE SUFFICED. IT APPEARED WE WERE BEING PUNISHED FOR A JUDGEMENT CALL. WHILE TAXIING IN, WE WERE ASKED TO CONTACT THE TWR SUPVR. WHEN THE CAPT CALLED HE WAS ASKED IF HE INTENDED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HIS TREATMENT. THE CAPT TOLD HIM NO, BUT EXPLAINED THE SITUATION. THE SUPVR ARGUED WITH HIM RE: HIS JUDGEMENT AND INSISTED HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO NOTIFY THEM SOONER. I WITNESSED ANOTHER INCIDENT IN THE RECENT PAST WHEN AT DFW AN ACR ACFT WAS TOLD TO CLEAR THE RWY WHEN HE REQUESTED 1 MIN FURTHER SEP BEHIND A HVY JET THAT HAD JUST TAKEN OFF AND WAS 5 MI AHEAD. HE WAS PUNISHED BY BEING PLACED BEHIND SEVERAL OTHER ACFT. THE MESSAGE I AM GETTING FROM A GROUP THAT IS SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT THE SAFE OPERATION OF MY ACFT IS: YOU MAKE A JUDGEMENT CALL FOR SAFETY REASONS AND WE WILL PUNISH YOU FOR MESSING WITH OUR SYS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.