Air carrier captain's complaint about speed control used by N90 during vectors for approach to ewr.

Attributes
ACN	195225
Time
Date	199111
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ewr
State Reference	NJ
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : n90 tracon : n90
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	cruise other descent : approach descent other
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 10500 flight time type : 1700
ASRS Report	195225
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

Being vectored for an approach to runway 4R at ewr. WX 300-400 overcast. We are in the WX. Approach control assigns us (and aircraft in front and behind) 180 KTS (large transport final approach speed of 125 KTS). Approach control gives us brief when we request a lower speed. Came in the next day to ewr, different runway, WX 800- 1000 overcast, given 180 KTS to the marker and vectored above the GS. On the ground I talked to the ny 'area controller' and was told I was 'the first pilot in 20 yrs of controling to complain' (about the problem). That 180 KTS to the OM is 'standard procedure' in the ny area. That if a pilot wanted a slower airspeed he should inform approach control on first contact. A couple of problems. If the 'feds' want us to fly this type of approach, we should train and practice. An large transport (or any other transport aircraft) should not be in idle that close to the ground. An large transport, even at 160 KTS at the OM, cannot smoothly configure to final approach airspeed and confign. Bottom line: pilots cannot solve all of ATC's congestion problems.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR CAPT'S COMPLAINT ABOUT SPD CTL USED BY N90 DURING VECTORS FOR APCH TO EWR.

Narrative: BEING VECTORED FOR AN APCH TO RWY 4R AT EWR. WX 300-400 OVCST. WE ARE IN THE WX. APCH CTL ASSIGNS US (AND ACFT IN FRONT AND BEHIND) 180 KTS (LGT FINAL APCH SPD OF 125 KTS). APCH CTL GIVES US BRIEF WHEN WE REQUEST A LOWER SPD. CAME IN THE NEXT DAY TO EWR, DIFFERENT RWY, WX 800- 1000 OVCST, GIVEN 180 KTS TO THE MARKER AND VECTORED ABOVE THE GS. ON THE GND I TALKED TO THE NY 'AREA CTLR' AND WAS TOLD I WAS 'THE FIRST PLT IN 20 YRS OF CTLING TO COMPLAIN' (ABOUT THE PROBLEM). THAT 180 KTS TO THE OM IS 'STANDARD PROC' IN THE NY AREA. THAT IF A PLT Wanted A SLOWER AIRSPD HE SHOULD INFORM APCH CTL ON FIRST CONTACT. A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS. IF THE 'FEDS' WANT US TO FLY THIS TYPE OF APCH, WE SHOULD TRAIN AND PRACTICE. AN LGT (OR ANY OTHER TRANSPORT ACFT) SHOULD NOT BE IN IDLE THAT CLOSE TO THE GND. AN LGT, EVEN AT 160 KTS AT THE OM, CANNOT SMOOTHLY CONFIGURE TO FINAL APCH AIRSPD AND CONFIGN. BOTTOM LINE: PLTS CANNOT SOLVE ALL OF ATC'S CONGESTION PROBLEMS.

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.