Narrative:

Approach assigned us runway 36L for landing and then held us up high/fast (210 KTS/6000 ft). Finally received approach clearance for a visual with a turn inside the marker. PIC told approach unable to accept because we couldn't make it down properly meeting company requirements for a stabilized approach. Asked for an extended downwind but then was told by approach (after handoff) that we were now cleared for a visual to runway 36C. (Approach still had us high/fast.) needless to say, we were high/fast all the way and landed long on runway 36C (but on speed). WX was fine, no aircraft problems, no other traffic to worry about, but it was slightly uncomfortable being in that situation and technically didn't meet our company standards for a stabilized approach inside 1000 ft AGL. PNF (first officer) did a nice job flying the aircraft since approach control was the one that handled us poorly and set us up but I (PIC) should have refused the clearance or should have gone around on a missed approach. We had no problem stopping and actually cleared the runway where we usually would have (over 11000 ft runway). Lessons learned: 1) PIC should have gone around -- not accepted set-up. 2) memphis approach still treats B757's like DC9's or B727's. We can't get down fast and slow up fast like other aircraft. The B757 is very unique in this situation -- you have to have planning. 3) recognized the importance of a stabilized approach -- not the time to be changing runways/working the FMC, configuring aircraft, etc, down low like it occurred to us. 4) approach facilities, ATC need to be educated about the capabilities of the B757 and its flight characteristics. 5) PIC called approach control after landing and voiced my concerns about how we were handled. I re-emphasized the importance of a stabilized approach and company policy.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 PIC RPT ON AN ATC SIT THAT CREATED AN UNSTABILIZED APCH INTO MEM, TN.

Narrative: APCH ASSIGNED US RWY 36L FOR LNDG AND THEN HELD US UP HIGH/FAST (210 KTS/6000 FT). FINALLY RECEIVED APCH CLRNC FOR A VISUAL WITH A TURN INSIDE THE MARKER. PIC TOLD APCH UNABLE TO ACCEPT BECAUSE WE COULDN'T MAKE IT DOWN PROPERLY MEETING COMPANY REQUIREMENTS FOR A STABILIZED APCH. ASKED FOR AN EXTENDED DOWNWIND BUT THEN WAS TOLD BY APCH (AFTER HDOF) THAT WE WERE NOW CLRED FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 36C. (APCH STILL HAD US HIGH/FAST.) NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE WERE HIGH/FAST ALL THE WAY AND LANDED LONG ON RWY 36C (BUT ON SPD). WX WAS FINE, NO ACFT PROBS, NO OTHER TFC TO WORRY ABOUT, BUT IT WAS SLIGHTLY UNCOMFORTABLE BEING IN THAT SIT AND TECHNICALLY DIDN'T MEET OUR COMPANY STANDARDS FOR A STABILIZED APCH INSIDE 1000 FT AGL. PNF (FO) DID A NICE JOB FLYING THE ACFT SINCE APCH CTL WAS THE ONE THAT HANDLED US POORLY AND SET US UP BUT I (PIC) SHOULD HAVE REFUSED THE CLRNC OR SHOULD HAVE GONE AROUND ON A MISSED APCH. WE HAD NO PROB STOPPING AND ACTUALLY CLRED THE RWY WHERE WE USUALLY WOULD HAVE (OVER 11000 FT RWY). LESSONS LEARNED: 1) PIC SHOULD HAVE GONE AROUND -- NOT ACCEPTED SET-UP. 2) MEMPHIS APCH STILL TREATS B757'S LIKE DC9'S OR B727'S. WE CAN'T GET DOWN FAST AND SLOW UP FAST LIKE OTHER ACFT. THE B757 IS VERY UNIQUE IN THIS SIT -- YOU HAVE TO HAVE PLANNING. 3) RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF A STABILIZED APCH -- NOT THE TIME TO BE CHANGING RWYS/WORKING THE FMC, CONFIGURING ACFT, ETC, DOWN LOW LIKE IT OCCURRED TO US. 4) APCH FACILITIES, ATC NEED TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT THE CAPABILITIES OF THE B757 AND ITS FLT CHARACTERISTICS. 5) PIC CALLED APCH CTL AFTER LNDG AND VOICED MY CONCERNS ABOUT HOW WE WERE HANDLED. I RE-EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF A STABILIZED APCH AND COMPANY POLICY.

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.