Narrative:

Reporter is PF (copilot assigned to 2 captain trip). Aircraft X arrived in terminal area via STAR then vectored by approach control to intercept runway 9L localizer approximately 20-25 mi from runway. Controller seemed to be moderately busy (possibly training). We were given a speed reduction followed by a request to increase to be '#1.' delayed configuring aircraft for landing and maintained 200 KTS approaching FAF. Controller vectored aircraft Y a B737 to base leg inside the FAF and began questioning us if we saw him. I realized this wasn't going to work because the other aircraft Y was high and we were closing at a point near the FAF. Crew was also unsure of the type of aircraft (concerned it was a heavy airbus), so we agreed not to accept a visual. It became obvious standard IFR separation would not exist and we were going to be coerced into a visual approach. I questioned the controller what distance we were behind the B737 (aircraft Y). He stated 1 1/2 mi, and that we had accepted a visual approach. We rejected his assertion and requested another runway (ie, sidestep to runway 9R or enter base leg for runway 13). Controller stated coordination could not be effected. We then offered to s- turn to 'make it work.' we were then vectored off the localizer, resequenced behind traffic and landed without further incident. I made it clear that we were not going to accept a visual to correct his bad planning and possibly endanger our flight and passenger.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CTLR TRIED TO COAX RPTR INTO ACCEPTING A VISUAL BEHIND ACFT Y. RPTR REJECTED REQUEST BECAUSE THEY HAD LTSS. RPTR'S ACFT WAS VECTORED OFF THE FINAL AND RESEQUENCED.

Narrative: RPTR IS PF (COPLT ASSIGNED TO 2 CAPT TRIP). ACFT X ARRIVED IN TERMINAL AREA VIA STAR THEN VECTORED BY APCH CTL TO INTERCEPT RWY 9L LOC APPROX 20-25 MI FROM RWY. CTLR SEEMED TO BE MODERATELY BUSY (POSSIBLY TRAINING). WE WERE GIVEN A SPD REDUCTION FOLLOWED BY A REQUEST TO INCREASE TO BE '#1.' DELAYED CONFIGURING ACFT FOR LNDG AND MAINTAINED 200 KTS APCHING FAF. CTLR VECTORED ACFT Y A B737 TO BASE LEG INSIDE THE FAF AND BEGAN QUESTIONING US IF WE SAW HIM. I REALIZED THIS WASN'T GOING TO WORK BECAUSE THE OTHER ACFT Y WAS HIGH AND WE WERE CLOSING AT A POINT NEAR THE FAF. CREW WAS ALSO UNSURE OF THE TYPE OF ACFT (CONCERNED IT WAS A HVY AIRBUS), SO WE AGREED NOT TO ACCEPT A VISUAL. IT BECAME OBVIOUS STANDARD IFR SEPARATION WOULD NOT EXIST AND WE WERE GOING TO BE COERCED INTO A VISUAL APCH. I QUESTIONED THE CTLR WHAT DISTANCE WE WERE BEHIND THE B737 (ACFT Y). HE STATED 1 1/2 MI, AND THAT WE HAD ACCEPTED A VISUAL APCH. WE REJECTED HIS ASSERTION AND REQUESTED ANOTHER RWY (IE, SIDESTEP TO RWY 9R OR ENTER BASE LEG FOR RWY 13). CTLR STATED COORD COULD NOT BE EFFECTED. WE THEN OFFERED TO S- TURN TO 'MAKE IT WORK.' WE WERE THEN VECTORED OFF THE LOC, RESEQUENCED BEHIND TFC AND LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. I MADE IT CLR THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT A VISUAL TO CORRECT HIS BAD PLANNING AND POSSIBLY ENDANGER OUR FLT AND PAX.

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.