Narrative:

On arrival into lax from over pdz with civet profile descent, air carrier X was instructed by lax approach control to hold 330 KTS until instructed otherwise. Just prior to arnes (D34/ilax) was instructed to hold 250 KTS and was asked if we had an air carrier Y in sight at 12 O'clock and 7 mi. I did not report the widebody transport in sight at that time and heard an air carrier flight report he was slowing to 210 KTS. At fuelr (D25/ilax) we had closed to 5 mi sep and was instructed to slow to 190 KTS. At this time I reported the air carrier Y in sight and was told to follow him visly to runway 25L. At this time I elected to extend full spoilers and the landing gear in an effort to meet the maximum crossing altitude of 7000' at baset and slow to 190 KTS at the same time. I was able to slow to 230 KTS and was still slightly high over baset. At this time air carrier Y had become quite large and I was aware we were much closer than 5 mi. In my judgement we were about 3 mi in trail and I was unable to talk with approach due to the many radio xmissions. About this time a different controller came on and instructed air carrier X to slow to 160 KTS and descend west/O delay to 2500' and I was now cleared for a visibility approach to runway 25R and air carrier Y still landing runway 25L. I have no way of knowing the sep at this time, but I was convinced the operation was entirely unacceptable and was able to transmit we were breaking off to the left for another approach. Once on the ground I spoke by phone with lax approach control supervisor on duty and was disappointed to hear him say the only reason for visibility approachs was to shorten the aircraft sep even when 'heavy jets' were on approach. Also as long as one aircraft was landing runway 25R and another landing runway 25L there was not a need for lateral sep. If this is the attitude at lax approach control I will not be accepting visibility approachs in the future.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X FAILED TO REDUCE SPEED TO FOLLOW ACR Y, WDB, FOR VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: ON ARR INTO LAX FROM OVER PDZ WITH CIVET PROFILE DSNT, ACR X WAS INSTRUCTED BY LAX APCH CTL TO HOLD 330 KTS UNTIL INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE. JUST PRIOR TO ARNES (D34/ILAX) WAS INSTRUCTED TO HOLD 250 KTS AND WAS ASKED IF WE HAD AN ACR Y IN SIGHT AT 12 O'CLOCK AND 7 MI. I DID NOT RPT THE WDB IN SIGHT AT THAT TIME AND HEARD AN ACR FLT RPT HE WAS SLOWING TO 210 KTS. AT FUELR (D25/ILAX) WE HAD CLOSED TO 5 MI SEP AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO SLOW TO 190 KTS. AT THIS TIME I RPTED THE ACR Y IN SIGHT AND WAS TOLD TO FOLLOW HIM VISLY TO RWY 25L. AT THIS TIME I ELECTED TO EXTEND FULL SPOILERS AND THE LNDG GEAR IN AN EFFORT TO MEET THE MAX XING ALT OF 7000' AT BASET AND SLOW TO 190 KTS AT THE SAME TIME. I WAS ABLE TO SLOW TO 230 KTS AND WAS STILL SLIGHTLY HIGH OVER BASET. AT THIS TIME ACR Y HAD BECOME QUITE LARGE AND I WAS AWARE WE WERE MUCH CLOSER THAN 5 MI. IN MY JUDGEMENT WE WERE ABOUT 3 MI IN TRAIL AND I WAS UNABLE TO TALK WITH APCH DUE TO THE MANY RADIO XMISSIONS. ABOUT THIS TIME A DIFFERENT CTLR CAME ON AND INSTRUCTED ACR X TO SLOW TO 160 KTS AND DSND W/O DELAY TO 2500' AND I WAS NOW CLRED FOR A VIS APCH TO RWY 25R AND ACR Y STILL LNDG RWY 25L. I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THE SEP AT THIS TIME, BUT I WAS CONVINCED THE OPERATION WAS ENTIRELY UNACCEPTABLE AND WAS ABLE TO XMIT WE WERE BREAKING OFF TO THE L FOR ANOTHER APCH. ONCE ON THE GND I SPOKE BY PHONE WITH LAX APCH CTL SUPVR ON DUTY AND WAS DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR HIM SAY THE ONLY REASON FOR VIS APCHS WAS TO SHORTEN THE ACFT SEP EVEN WHEN 'HEAVY JETS' WERE ON APCH. ALSO AS LONG AS ONE ACFT WAS LNDG RWY 25R AND ANOTHER LNDG RWY 25L THERE WAS NOT A NEED FOR LATERAL SEP. IF THIS IS THE ATTITUDE AT LAX APCH CTL I WILL NOT BE ACCEPTING VIS APCHS IN THE FUTURE.

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.