Narrative:

On jan/xa/01, my first officer and I were issued 210 KTS until further advised by pit approach control. A short time later, ATC descended us to 6000 ft. After that, we were told 6000 ft, 210 KTS until grunz, cleared for the approach. Grunz is the IAF for ILS runway 32. Thinking that the 210 KTS that was previously issued ended at grunz, I began to slow the aircraft to begin configuring it for the approach. Once I started to slow, approach control asked what our speed was. We said 160 KTS. ATC told me to increase speed to 210 KTS as previously assigned for spacing. After that, the controller said the spacing would not work, so he turned us right off the approach. After landing and talking with the controller, I learned I need to inquire when a previously issued speed, altitude, etc, ends. Supplemental information from acn 498263: on jan/xa/01, about XA00, we were receiving vectors for the ILS runway 32 at pit. Approximately 30-40 NM out, we were issued 210 KTS. A short time later, we were issued normal speed from ATC. We said we would maintain 210 KTS, and approach control said 'maintain 210 KTS until further advised.' we were tracking inbound on the localizer and traffic on the approach was heavy. ATC then issued the following clearance, 'maintain 6000 ft, 210 KTS until grunz intersection cleared ILS runway 32.' upon intercepting the GS at grunz, we configured the airplane for descent, and began slowing down whilst following the GS. Approach control asked our airspeed, which I replied 160 KTS. They said our assigned airspeed was 210 KTS for spacing and to increase immediately. We immediately retracted the flaps and landing gear, and increased power, but approach control said 'this is not going to work' and vectored us off the approach. We were told to maintain 'whatever speed we wanted to.' I queried ATC as to how long the delay would set us back and was told 'I don't know, it'll probably be a while.' my captain and I discussed our fuel status, which was approaching 500 pounds. En route winds were much stronger than forecast, leaving us with less fuel than planned. Company SOP states if landing with less than 500 pounds fuel, minimum fuel should be declared. I, therefore, declared minimum fuel with approach control. ATC asked if an emergency was being declared. I replied no. We received a short vector back onto the ILS runway 32 and landed without incident. Ground control advised us to contact the tower via phone after shutting down. The supervisor on duty told my captain a pilot deviation form was going to be filed with the local FSDO due to not maintaining the 210 KT assigned speed on the initial approach. Debriefing postflt with my captain, we both still believed the 210 KT restr was to the grunz intersection only. Of course, after an incident such as this, and the ATC supervisor saying the tapes were going to be pulled, it naturally casts a certain level of doubt with what we believe to be true. If in fact we were in the wrong, it can only be chalked up to a simple operational error on our part. Air traffic was quite heavy at the time of the incident and many speed restrs were placed on different aircraft, but not all of them were to the same points (eg, '210 KTS until grunz,' '210 KTS until advise,' 'slow to 210 KTS, then descend to 4000 ft,' etc). Some standardization would've been helpful during a high workload period such as this. I also can't help but wonder if our declaring minimum fuel somehow added 'fuel to the fire' and our resultant call to ATC on the ground.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LTT CREW HAD SPD DEV IN PIT CLASS B AIRSPACE.

Narrative: ON JAN/XA/01, MY FO AND I WERE ISSUED 210 KTS UNTIL FURTHER ADVISED BY PIT APCH CTL. A SHORT TIME LATER, ATC DSNDED US TO 6000 FT. AFTER THAT, WE WERE TOLD 6000 FT, 210 KTS UNTIL GRUNZ, CLRED FOR THE APCH. GRUNZ IS THE IAF FOR ILS RWY 32. THINKING THAT THE 210 KTS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ENDED AT GRUNZ, I BEGAN TO SLOW THE ACFT TO BEGIN CONFIGURING IT FOR THE APCH. ONCE I STARTED TO SLOW, APCH CTL ASKED WHAT OUR SPD WAS. WE SAID 160 KTS. ATC TOLD ME TO INCREASE SPD TO 210 KTS AS PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED FOR SPACING. AFTER THAT, THE CTLR SAID THE SPACING WOULD NOT WORK, SO HE TURNED US R OFF THE APCH. AFTER LNDG AND TALKING WITH THE CTLR, I LEARNED I NEED TO INQUIRE WHEN A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED SPD, ALT, ETC, ENDS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 498263: ON JAN/XA/01, ABOUT XA00, WE WERE RECEIVING VECTORS FOR THE ILS RWY 32 AT PIT. APPROX 30-40 NM OUT, WE WERE ISSUED 210 KTS. A SHORT TIME LATER, WE WERE ISSUED NORMAL SPD FROM ATC. WE SAID WE WOULD MAINTAIN 210 KTS, AND APCH CTL SAID 'MAINTAIN 210 KTS UNTIL FURTHER ADVISED.' WE WERE TRACKING INBOUND ON THE LOC AND TFC ON THE APCH WAS HVY. ATC THEN ISSUED THE FOLLOWING CLRNC, 'MAINTAIN 6000 FT, 210 KTS UNTIL GRUNZ INTXN CLRED ILS RWY 32.' UPON INTERCEPTING THE GS AT GRUNZ, WE CONFIGURED THE AIRPLANE FOR DSCNT, AND BEGAN SLOWING DOWN WHILST FOLLOWING THE GS. APCH CTL ASKED OUR AIRSPD, WHICH I REPLIED 160 KTS. THEY SAID OUR ASSIGNED AIRSPD WAS 210 KTS FOR SPACING AND TO INCREASE IMMEDIATELY. WE IMMEDIATELY RETRACTED THE FLAPS AND LNDG GEAR, AND INCREASED PWR, BUT APCH CTL SAID 'THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK' AND VECTORED US OFF THE APCH. WE WERE TOLD TO MAINTAIN 'WHATEVER SPD WE WANTED TO.' I QUERIED ATC AS TO HOW LONG THE DELAY WOULD SET US BACK AND WAS TOLD 'I DON'T KNOW, IT'LL PROBABLY BE A WHILE.' MY CAPT AND I DISCUSSED OUR FUEL STATUS, WHICH WAS APCHING 500 LBS. ENRTE WINDS WERE MUCH STRONGER THAN FORECAST, LEAVING US WITH LESS FUEL THAN PLANNED. COMPANY SOP STATES IF LNDG WITH LESS THAN 500 LBS FUEL, MINIMUM FUEL SHOULD BE DECLARED. I, THEREFORE, DECLARED MINIMUM FUEL WITH APCH CTL. ATC ASKED IF AN EMER WAS BEING DECLARED. I REPLIED NO. WE RECEIVED A SHORT VECTOR BACK ONTO THE ILS RWY 32 AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. GND CTL ADVISED US TO CONTACT THE TWR VIA PHONE AFTER SHUTTING DOWN. THE SUPVR ON DUTY TOLD MY CAPT A PLTDEV FORM WAS GOING TO BE FILED WITH THE LCL FSDO DUE TO NOT MAINTAINING THE 210 KT ASSIGNED SPD ON THE INITIAL APCH. DEBRIEFING POSTFLT WITH MY CAPT, WE BOTH STILL BELIEVED THE 210 KT RESTR WAS TO THE GRUNZ INTXN ONLY. OF COURSE, AFTER AN INCIDENT SUCH AS THIS, AND THE ATC SUPVR SAYING THE TAPES WERE GOING TO BE PULLED, IT NATURALLY CASTS A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DOUBT WITH WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. IF IN FACT WE WERE IN THE WRONG, IT CAN ONLY BE CHALKED UP TO A SIMPLE OPERROR ON OUR PART. AIR TFC WAS QUITE HVY AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT AND MANY SPD RESTRS WERE PLACED ON DIFFERENT ACFT, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM WERE TO THE SAME POINTS (EG, '210 KTS UNTIL GRUNZ,' '210 KTS UNTIL ADVISE,' 'SLOW TO 210 KTS, THEN DSND TO 4000 FT,' ETC). SOME STANDARDIZATION WOULD'VE BEEN HELPFUL DURING A HIGH WORKLOAD PERIOD SUCH AS THIS. I ALSO CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER IF OUR DECLARING MINIMUM FUEL SOMEHOW ADDED 'FUEL TO THE FIRE' AND OUR RESULTANT CALL TO ATC ON THE GND.

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.