Narrative:

Cleared for approach to runway 9R ILS in atl. We were instructed to maintain 180 KTS to burny (the FAF). We were instructed by the airline to be configured on final approach speed prior to the FAF for an IMC approach. Rather than try and get a word in edgewise to the already overworked controller. We maintained 180 KTS until past tizzy before starting to configure. Passing burny, we were configured but still doing 160 KTS and trying to slow to our final approach speed of 133 KTS -- not as instructed by either the airline or approach but what I considered to be a compromise without my jeopardizing what I considered to be a safe IMC approach. At that moment, the controller became irate that I had disobeyed his instructions and directed an immediate break-off of the approach. I tried to explain that my carrier requires us to be on speed prior to the FAF during an IMC approach, but he would have nothing to do with it. He subsequently cleared us to intercept the localizer and sent us to tower without clearing us for the ILS approach. I had to receive that clearance from the tower monitor. I realize the approach controllers are being pressured to squeeze in as much traffic as possible, but this cannot be done at the expense of what the airline teaches to be a safe WX approach. I, as the pilot, am caught in the middle.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MLG CREW ON APCH TO ATL REDUCED TO FINAL APCH SPD TO THE CHAGRIN OF ATC, WHO REQUESTED 180 KTS TO THE OM.

Narrative: CLRED FOR APCH TO RWY 9R ILS IN ATL. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN 180 KTS TO BURNY (THE FAF). WE WERE INSTRUCTED BY THE AIRLINE TO BE CONFIGURED ON FINAL APCH SPD PRIOR TO THE FAF FOR AN IMC APCH. RATHER THAN TRY AND GET A WORD IN EDGEWISE TO THE ALREADY OVERWORKED CTLR. WE MAINTAINED 180 KTS UNTIL PAST TIZZY BEFORE STARTING TO CONFIGURE. PASSING BURNY, WE WERE CONFIGURED BUT STILL DOING 160 KTS AND TRYING TO SLOW TO OUR FINAL APCH SPD OF 133 KTS -- NOT AS INSTRUCTED BY EITHER THE AIRLINE OR APCH BUT WHAT I CONSIDERED TO BE A COMPROMISE WITHOUT MY JEOPARDIZING WHAT I CONSIDERED TO BE A SAFE IMC APCH. AT THAT MOMENT, THE CTLR BECAME IRATE THAT I HAD DISOBEYED HIS INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTED AN IMMEDIATE BREAK-OFF OF THE APCH. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT MY CARRIER REQUIRES US TO BE ON SPD PRIOR TO THE FAF DURING AN IMC APCH, BUT HE WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. HE SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED US TO INTERCEPT THE LOC AND SENT US TO TWR WITHOUT CLRING US FOR THE ILS APCH. I HAD TO RECEIVE THAT CLRNC FROM THE TWR MONITOR. I REALIZE THE APCH CTLRS ARE BEING PRESSURED TO SQUEEZE IN AS MUCH TFC AS POSSIBLE, BUT THIS CANNOT BE DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF WHAT THE AIRLINE TEACHES TO BE A SAFE WX APCH. I, AS THE PLT, AM CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE.

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.