Narrative:

Turned final for a visual approach to runway 9R, 3 mi behind another aircraft, cleared for a visual, maintain 180 KTS to deana, call tower at deana, etc. While on the visual, localizer and GS captured, and speed exactly as instructed, the jet ahead appeared to us to be a B757. The first officer, PNF, and I thought it wise to inquire as to the type of aircraft now slowing less than 3 mi ahead. We asked ATC say type aircraft ahead and he curtly replied a 'DC9.' this was obviously in error and due to frequency congestion, could not clarify this, so I elected to as slowly as possible, and incrementally, ease the speed back to regain 3 to 3 1/2 mi spacing. I have been under the impression that the responsibility and authority/authorized for spacing on a visual approach is on the aircraft 'following' an aircraft. ATC barked a speed inquiry at us and said that our GS dropped to 110 KTS just as we crossed deana. Even given the high winds on the approach at this time I find it hard to believe that this was the case. Over deana he had instructed us to pick the speed back up and I did by about 20 KTS and prepared for an obvious go around. If I had not slowed to regain barely 3 mi spacing we clearly would have gone around and possibly encountered this what turned out to be airbus 320's wake. The responsibility for spacing is mine, as the aircraft. Following another until rules and common sense are overridden.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FOKKER 100 CLRED MAINTAIN 180 KTS TO DEANA 3 MI BEHIND ACFT. THOUGHT CLOSING ON B757 AND REDUCED SPD TO INCREASE SPACING. CTLR UPSET AND SAID GND SPD 110 KTS AND INCREASE. ACFT AHEAD WAS AIRBUS 320 AND WAS ABLE TO LAND BEHIND OK.

Narrative: TURNED FINAL FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 9R, 3 MI BEHIND ANOTHER ACFT, CLRED FOR A VISUAL, MAINTAIN 180 KTS TO DEANA, CALL TWR AT DEANA, ETC. WHILE ON THE VISUAL, LOC AND GS CAPTURED, AND SPD EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED, THE JET AHEAD APPEARED TO US TO BE A B757. THE FO, PNF, AND I THOUGHT IT WISE TO INQUIRE AS TO THE TYPE OF ACFT NOW SLOWING LESS THAN 3 MI AHEAD. WE ASKED ATC SAY TYPE ACFT AHEAD AND HE CURTLY REPLIED A 'DC9.' THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY IN ERROR AND DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION, COULD NOT CLARIFY THIS, SO I ELECTED TO AS SLOWLY AS POSSIBLE, AND INCREMENTALLY, EASE THE SPD BACK TO REGAIN 3 TO 3 1/2 MI SPACING. I HAVE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTH FOR SPACING ON A VISUAL APCH IS ON THE ACFT 'FOLLOWING' AN ACFT. ATC BARKED A SPD INQUIRY AT US AND SAID THAT OUR GS DROPPED TO 110 KTS JUST AS WE CROSSED DEANA. EVEN GIVEN THE HIGH WINDS ON THE APCH AT THIS TIME I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS THE CASE. OVER DEANA HE HAD INSTRUCTED US TO PICK THE SPD BACK UP AND I DID BY ABOUT 20 KTS AND PREPARED FOR AN OBVIOUS GAR. IF I HAD NOT SLOWED TO REGAIN BARELY 3 MI SPACING WE CLRLY WOULD HAVE GONE AROUND AND POSSIBLY ENCOUNTERED THIS WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE AIRBUS 320'S WAKE. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPACING IS MINE, AS THE ACFT. FOLLOWING ANOTHER UNTIL RULES AND COMMON SENSE ARE OVERRIDDEN.

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.