Narrative:

Flight from slc to den. Den was using visual approachs to runways 26L/right. While heading southeast, 6 NM northeast of den, at 11000 ft MSL, we were asked if we had crossing traffic below us at 10 O'clock that was heading southwest. We were then cleared for a visual approach to runway 26R and commenced a right turn toward the airport. At about 5 NM from runway 26R, we were still required to lose substantial altitude, slow down, and configure. We were then notified of 40 KTS overtake on previously called traffic, which we were to follow, at 7500 ft MSL, we were in a high abeam position, north of the fully configured traffic while attempting to lose altitude and airspeed. Unable to safely complete the approach, den approach control vectored us off the approach. We completed an additional visual approach with an uneventful landing. Contributing factors: 1) a clearance for a visual approach with high crossing angles when in close proximity to aircraft being followed. 2) a clearance for a visual approach when altitude and airspeed must be lost. 3) we were not notified of excessive closure until almost abeam our traffic. No adjustments were made for spacing by approach control (prior to clearance). 4) to generate additional spacing, a turn east (away from the airport) and probable lost sight of the landing runway would have been required. Corrective action: 1) execution of the missed approach was appropriate, but could have been avoided if den approach control would have provided adequate horizontal and vertical spacing and additional time/distance to lose altitude prior to our clearance for a visual approach. 2) additionally, when cleared for an approach, a call from den approach control notifying us of our 40 KTS overtake would have been helpful and appropriate.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GAR FROM VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: FLT FROM SLC TO DEN. DEN WAS USING VISUAL APCHS TO RWYS 26L/R. WHILE HDG SE, 6 NM NE OF DEN, AT 11000 FT MSL, WE WERE ASKED IF WE HAD XING TFC BELOW US AT 10 O'CLOCK THAT WAS HDG SW. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 26R AND COMMENCED A R TURN TOWARD THE ARPT. AT ABOUT 5 NM FROM RWY 26R, WE WERE STILL REQUIRED TO LOSE SUBSTANTIAL ALT, SLOW DOWN, AND CONFIGURE. WE WERE THEN NOTIFIED OF 40 KTS OVERTAKE ON PREVIOUSLY CALLED TFC, WHICH WE WERE TO FOLLOW, AT 7500 FT MSL, WE WERE IN A HIGH ABEAM POS, N OF THE FULLY CONFIGURED TFC WHILE ATTEMPTING TO LOSE ALT AND AIRSPD. UNABLE TO SAFELY COMPLETE THE APCH, DEN APCH CTL VECTORED US OFF THE APCH. WE COMPLETED AN ADDITIONAL VISUAL APCH WITH AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) A CLRNC FOR A VISUAL APCH WITH HIGH XING ANGLES WHEN IN CLOSE PROX TO ACFT BEING FOLLOWED. 2) A CLRNC FOR A VISUAL APCH WHEN ALT AND AIRSPD MUST BE LOST. 3) WE WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF EXCESSIVE CLOSURE UNTIL ALMOST ABEAM OUR TFC. NO ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE FOR SPACING BY APCH CTL (PRIOR TO CLRNC). 4) TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL SPACING, A TURN E (AWAY FROM THE ARPT) AND PROBABLE LOST SIGHT OF THE LNDG RWY WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED. CORRECTIVE ACTION: 1) EXECUTION OF THE MISSED APCH WAS APPROPRIATE, BUT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF DEN APCH CTL WOULD HAVE PROVIDED ADEQUATE HORIZONTAL AND VERT SPACING AND ADDITIONAL TIME/DISTANCE TO LOSE ALT PRIOR TO OUR CLRNC FOR A VISUAL APCH. 2) ADDITIONALLY, WHEN CLRED FOR AN APCH, A CALL FROM DEN APCH CTL NOTIFYING US OF OUR 40 KTS OVERTAKE WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL AND APPROPRIATE.

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.