Narrative:

I was PF. We were assigned 14000 ft on 80 degree heading at 210 KTS. We were very high, fairly close to the airport. My first officer missed 1 call due to frequency congestion. I believed we were cleared down to 12000 ft, but had her verify with ATC. We were following a B757 (aircraft Y) and were very close behind it. ATC gave us a heading to join and scolded my first officer for not responding to altitude clrncs quick enough. When we joined localizer to runway 35L den, we were cleared to 9000 ft and slowed to 170 KTS. This was too close to the B757 (aircraft Y), so ATC broke us off to the left (west) or runway 35L localizer, then vectored us back to the right to rejoin the runway 35L localizer, evidently still too close to the B757 (aircraft Y), so he had us break off the approach to the west again. At this point I queried him as to his intentions and requested a sidestep to runway 35R. He agreed if we could see traffic (aircraft Z) now at our 12 O'clock position, which made no sense since a turn this close in would have made such traffic 'no factor.' we ended up with a left 270 degree turn to rejoin runway 35L and threatened by ATC with another go around if we could not locate the next aircraft (aircraft Z) we were to follow (now on the runway 35L localizer in front of us). We picked up the traffic (aircraft Z) and were cleared the visual. I feel the whole incident was poor planning on the part of ATC and their inability (in this case) to 'fit us in' to their big picture. This incident was rare, however, I feel that ATC underestimates the ability of the D328 to fit in with jets.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: D328 PIC GETS BROKE OFF FINAL APCH COURSE 3 TIMES DUE TO SEQUENCE SPACING BY D01. D328 PIC CONCERNED WITH D01 'THREATS' FOR ANOTHER BREAKOUT WHEN D01 IS DOING THE SPACING.

Narrative: I WAS PF. WE WERE ASSIGNED 14000 FT ON 80 DEG HDG AT 210 KTS. WE WERE VERY HIGH, FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE ARPT. MY FO MISSED 1 CALL DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION. I BELIEVED WE WERE CLRED DOWN TO 12000 FT, BUT HAD HER VERIFY WITH ATC. WE WERE FOLLOWING A B757 (ACFT Y) AND WERE VERY CLOSE BEHIND IT. ATC GAVE US A HDG TO JOIN AND SCOLDED MY FO FOR NOT RESPONDING TO ALT CLRNCS QUICK ENOUGH. WHEN WE JOINED LOC TO RWY 35L DEN, WE WERE CLRED TO 9000 FT AND SLOWED TO 170 KTS. THIS WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE B757 (ACFT Y), SO ATC BROKE US OFF TO THE L (W) OR RWY 35L LOC, THEN VECTORED US BACK TO THE R TO REJOIN THE RWY 35L LOC, EVIDENTLY STILL TOO CLOSE TO THE B757 (ACFT Y), SO HE HAD US BREAK OFF THE APCH TO THE W AGAIN. AT THIS POINT I QUERIED HIM AS TO HIS INTENTIONS AND REQUESTED A SIDESTEP TO RWY 35R. HE AGREED IF WE COULD SEE TFC (ACFT Z) NOW AT OUR 12 O'CLOCK POS, WHICH MADE NO SENSE SINCE A TURN THIS CLOSE IN WOULD HAVE MADE SUCH TFC 'NO FACTOR.' WE ENDED UP WITH A L 270 DEG TURN TO REJOIN RWY 35L AND THREATENED BY ATC WITH ANOTHER GAR IF WE COULD NOT LOCATE THE NEXT ACFT (ACFT Z) WE WERE TO FOLLOW (NOW ON THE RWY 35L LOC IN FRONT OF US). WE PICKED UP THE TFC (ACFT Z) AND WERE CLRED THE VISUAL. I FEEL THE WHOLE INCIDENT WAS POOR PLANNING ON THE PART OF ATC AND THEIR INABILITY (IN THIS CASE) TO 'FIT US IN' TO THEIR BIG PICTURE. THIS INCIDENT WAS RARE, HOWEVER, I FEEL THAT ATC UNDERESTIMATES THE ABILITY OF THE D328 TO FIT IN WITH JETS.

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.