Narrative:

I was captain and pilot monitoring. Toward the end of the arrival; we were slowed to 180 kt. And then 170 kt. On the downwind leg of the STAR. We complied with all speed restrictions. We were then vectored to join and subsequently cleared 'maintain 5000 until... Cleared ILS...' to which we complied and maintained a speed of 170 since that was the last assigned speed even though the approach clearance removed that speed restriction. We captured the glideslope and began to descend on the approach. We were given a 'caution wake turbulence' advisory from approach and informed that we were 5 miles in trail of a heavy aircraft Y and to contact tower. We switched over to the tower frequency and received our landing clearance. We saw aircraft Y on our TCAS inside of the 5 mile ring and we decided to slow to vref+5; 135 kt. And fully configure to maintain the minimal separation. Even though that is a function of ATC; we were just being courteous and operating within company standard operating procedures for prudent and safe practice; and standard instrument approach procedures. Shortly after; TRACON final monitor called us and asked for our airspeed; to which I responded '135 final approach speed.' the aircraft behind us was instructed to slow and they complied. The ATC controller's tone made it seem like he was losing control of the arrival traffic due to over saturation. We landed without incident and on our taxi in we were issued a brasher warning for a possible pilot deviation and given a phone number to call. After shutdown my first officer and I reviewed our flight per the company standard post-flight crew debrief and determined that we did not violate any regulation or clearance. After getting a briefing from my lawyer; I contacted the provided ARTCC phone number. I identified myself as the captain of the flight and provided my name. The TRACON manager placed me on a brief hold and upon returning he informed me that after reviewing the tapes there was no pilot deviation and explained that us slowing from 170 to our vref caused the final controller to panic and trigger the brasher and deviation investigation but after reviewing the tapes they realized that they did not issue us a speed constraint with the approach clearance.I explained that stacking aircraft X less than 5 miles behind a heavy in IMC conditions and expecting us to maintain such a high speed would be in violation of company SOP and stabilized approach criteria as we would not have been able to slow from 170 kt. To a reasonable speed and configure the aircraft by 1000 ft. He requested that we maintain our last assigned speed even though the aim does not require it. ATC failed to properly space the aircraft ahead and behind us on the approach. I believe ATC violated the required 5 mile separation between us and aircraft Y ahead and got irritated when we slowed to maintain the distance from aircraft Y and SOP and stabilized approach criteria. This airport ATC is notorious for disregarding wake turbulence separation and this needs to get fixed. Also issuing brasher warnings to crews that courteously fly 170 kt. To the marker and delay final configuration and speed as long as practical is just asinine. It's not my job to do their job for them; and they should not yell at me for performing my duties to the absolute letter of the law; SOP; and prudent and safe airmanship.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier Captain reported the TRACON Final Controller placing the crew too close to a preceding heavy jet arrival's wake turbulence and issuing a Brasher warning for a speed violation despite complying with ATC instructions.

Narrative: I was Captain and Pilot Monitoring. Toward the end of the arrival; we were slowed to 180 kt. and then 170 kt. on the downwind leg of the STAR. We complied with all speed restrictions. We were then vectored to join and subsequently cleared 'Maintain 5000 until... cleared ILS...' to which we complied and maintained a speed of 170 since that was the last assigned speed even though the approach clearance removed that speed restriction. We captured the glideslope and began to descend on the approach. We were given a 'Caution wake turbulence' advisory from Approach and informed that we were 5 miles in trail of a heavy Aircraft Y and to contact Tower. We switched over to the Tower frequency and received our landing clearance. We saw Aircraft Y on our TCAS inside of the 5 mile ring and we decided to slow to Vref+5; 135 kt. and fully configure to maintain the minimal separation. Even though that is a function of ATC; we were just being courteous and operating within Company standard operating procedures for prudent and safe practice; and standard instrument approach procedures. Shortly after; TRACON Final Monitor called us and asked for our airspeed; to which I responded '135 final approach speed.' The aircraft behind us was instructed to slow and they complied. The ATC Controller's tone made it seem like he was losing control of the arrival traffic due to over saturation. We landed without incident and on our taxi in we were issued a Brasher warning for a possible pilot deviation and given a phone number to call. After shutdown my First Officer and I reviewed our flight per the Company standard post-flight crew debrief and determined that we did not violate any regulation or clearance. After getting a briefing from my lawyer; I contacted the provided ARTCC phone number. I identified myself as the Captain of the flight and provided my name. The TRACON Manager placed me on a brief hold and upon returning he informed me that after reviewing the tapes there was no pilot deviation and explained that us slowing from 170 to our Vref caused the Final Controller to panic and trigger the Brasher and deviation investigation but after reviewing the tapes they realized that they did not issue us a speed constraint with the approach clearance.I explained that stacking Aircraft X less than 5 miles behind a heavy in IMC conditions and expecting us to maintain such a high speed would be in violation of Company SOP and stabilized approach criteria as we would not have been able to slow from 170 kt. to a reasonable speed and configure the aircraft by 1000 ft. He requested that we maintain our last assigned speed even though the AIM does not require it. ATC failed to properly space the aircraft ahead and behind us on the approach. I believe ATC violated the required 5 mile separation between us and Aircraft Y ahead and got irritated when we slowed to maintain the distance from Aircraft Y and SOP and stabilized approach criteria. This airport ATC is notorious for disregarding wake turbulence separation and this needs to get fixed. Also issuing Brasher warnings to crews that courteously fly 170 kt. to the marker and delay final configuration and speed as long as practical is just asinine. It's not my job to do their job for them; and they should not yell at me for performing my duties to the absolute letter of the law; SOP; and prudent and safe airmanship.

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.