Narrative:

Upon handoff from ZMA to mia approach, approach gave us a heading to join runway 30 localizer. We deviated around several level 2-4 thunderstorms along localizer course. Approach asked us to say airspeed of 200 KTS and maintain that speed. We were advised that we were in trail of a 757 inbound to mia. Approach advised 757 to keep speed up at approximately 6-7 NM from airport. We acquired a visual on runway 30. We were asked to slow to 190 KTS then 170 KTS because 757 slowed to 140 KTS. The spacing on our TCASII showed us 2 1/2 - 3 NM in trail. The controller advised 757 to pick the speed up -- the response was in broken english. Upon handoff to tower, I maintained a higher than normal glide path to stay above the 757 wake. The 757 landed long approximately 3000-3500 ft down the runway. The tower advised them to expedite off the runway. The 757 only slowed to a crawl and taxied the last 1500 ft, not using a taxiway he could have used. He crawled to the very end and slowed to vref approximately 2 1/2 NM and maintained trying to give him the spacing. The tower told us we were still cleared to land. I continued and landed. The tail of the 757's aircraft appeared to possibly still be over the runway edge boundary marking! I recommend that the south american air carriers teach their pilots better english speaking skills. This is not the first time I've had their pilots not understanding clearly what was being said to them in a hurry! They just did whatever they wanted to with no real understanding of how they are affecting the aircraft flow into that airport. The controller should have maintained better spacing and emphasized that more clearly instead of allowing the 757 to put my flight in a bind.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FOREIGN AIR CARRIER IS SLOW IN CLRING THE RWY CAUSING RPTING ACFT TO LAND WHEN OTHER ACFT HAD NOT YET CLRED.

Narrative: UPON HDOF FROM ZMA TO MIA APCH, APCH GAVE US A HDG TO JOIN RWY 30 LOC. WE DEVIATED AROUND SEVERAL LEVEL 2-4 TSTMS ALONG LOC COURSE. APCH ASKED US TO SAY AIRSPD OF 200 KTS AND MAINTAIN THAT SPD. WE WERE ADVISED THAT WE WERE IN TRAIL OF A 757 INBOUND TO MIA. APCH ADVISED 757 TO KEEP SPD UP AT APPROX 6-7 NM FROM ARPT. WE ACQUIRED A VISUAL ON RWY 30. WE WERE ASKED TO SLOW TO 190 KTS THEN 170 KTS BECAUSE 757 SLOWED TO 140 KTS. THE SPACING ON OUR TCASII SHOWED US 2 1/2 - 3 NM IN TRAIL. THE CTLR ADVISED 757 TO PICK THE SPD UP -- THE RESPONSE WAS IN BROKEN ENGLISH. UPON HDOF TO TWR, I MAINTAINED A HIGHER THAN NORMAL GLIDE PATH TO STAY ABOVE THE 757 WAKE. THE 757 LANDED LONG APPROX 3000-3500 FT DOWN THE RWY. THE TWR ADVISED THEM TO EXPEDITE OFF THE RWY. THE 757 ONLY SLOWED TO A CRAWL AND TAXIED THE LAST 1500 FT, NOT USING A TXWY HE COULD HAVE USED. HE CRAWLED TO THE VERY END AND SLOWED TO VREF APPROX 2 1/2 NM AND MAINTAINED TRYING TO GIVE HIM THE SPACING. THE TWR TOLD US WE WERE STILL CLRED TO LAND. I CONTINUED AND LANDED. THE TAIL OF THE 757'S ACFT APPEARED TO POSSIBLY STILL BE OVER THE RWY EDGE BOUNDARY MARKING! I RECOMMEND THAT THE S AMERICAN AIR CARRIERS TEACH THEIR PLTS BETTER ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILLS. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I'VE HAD THEIR PLTS NOT UNDERSTANDING CLRLY WHAT WAS BEING SAID TO THEM IN A HURRY! THEY JUST DID WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO WITH NO REAL UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THEY ARE AFFECTING THE ACFT FLOW INTO THAT ARPT. THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE MAINTAINED BETTER SPACING AND EMPHASIZED THAT MORE CLRLY INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE 757 TO PUT MY FLT IN A BIND.

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.