Narrative:

While being vectored for the visual approach we were joining the localizer for the runway when we were issued the clearance 'air carrier X; turn right heading 130 follow the air carrier Y 1-2 O'clock 3 miles; cleared for the visual approach 16R; maintain 170 ...' the captain read back the instructions. While making the turn we both acknowledged the airbus was slowing and was really closer to 2.5 miles in front of us and the gap was visually closing. I verbalized to the captain I was going to adjust the speed a bit and called for flaps 3 and slowed to 160 knots to assist in keeping the distance. Shortly thereafter we noticed the separation continue to appear to get closer so I in error slowed down even more and called for gear down and configured to land; slowing to vapp speed.in the business of it I said again we probably should advise approach and the ca agreed. He queried ATC and told them of our speed and approach told us we needed to maintain 160 to or the aircraft behind us would have to go around. It was very clear and I understood it perfectly. All the captain heard was go around and repeated it on the radio. I was flying with the automation off and auto-throttles off; so I pushed the throttles forward to accelerate to 160 knots again to meet ATC's requirement. The captain read back a go-around and then wondered why I was accelerating. I had to step up and speak up to correct the big mess that was created. We continued with the approach and the rest was uneventful. The first issue was the captains incorrect comprehension of the controller's instructions. Secondly; I think he could have verified the call for a go-around because there was no reason for it to be called especially in the manner it was said by the controller. The controller did nothing wrong; he was just speaking candidly and trying to facilitate the problem. I was flying the airplane first and complying and ignoring the distracting mess the captain was creating on the radio. I did have to correct him and get it straightened out. This whole snafu could have been avoided by just complying with the 160 knots to begin with; but hindsight is 20/20.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier pilot reported slowing to final approach speed even though ATC had assigned a speed to maintain on approach.

Narrative: While being vectored for the Visual Approach we were joining the localizer for the runway when we were issued the clearance 'Air Carrier X; turn right heading 130 follow the Air Carrier Y 1-2 O'clock 3 miles; cleared for the Visual Approach 16R; maintain 170 ...' The Captain read back the instructions. While making the turn we both acknowledged the airbus was slowing and was really closer to 2.5 miles in front of us and the gap was visually closing. I verbalized to the Captain I was going to adjust the speed a bit and called for flaps 3 and slowed to 160 knots to assist in keeping the distance. Shortly thereafter we noticed the separation continue to appear to get closer so I in error slowed down even more and called for gear down and configured to land; slowing to Vapp speed.In the business of it I said again we probably should advise approach and the CA agreed. He queried ATC and told them of our speed and approach told us we needed to maintain 160 to or the aircraft behind us would have to go around. It was very clear and I understood it perfectly. All the Captain heard was go around and repeated it on the radio. I was flying with the automation off and auto-throttles off; so I pushed the throttles forward to accelerate to 160 knots again to meet ATC's requirement. The Captain read back a go-around and then wondered why I was accelerating. I had to step up and speak up to correct the big mess that was created. We continued with the approach and the rest was uneventful. The first issue was the Captains incorrect comprehension of the controller's instructions. Secondly; I think he could have verified the call for a go-around because there was no reason for it to be called especially in the manner it was said by the controller. The controller did nothing wrong; he was just speaking candidly and trying to facilitate the problem. I was flying the airplane first and complying and ignoring the distracting mess the Captain was creating on the radio. I did have to correct him and get it straightened out. This whole snafu could have been avoided by just complying with the 160 knots to begin with; but hindsight is 20/20.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.