An E120 crew, on approach to atl, reduced speed below that assigned, prompting a query from ATC.

Attributes
ACN	558872
Time
Date	200208
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : atl.airport
State Reference	GA
Altitude	msl single value : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : a80.tracon tower : atl.tower tower : sea.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tracon : a80.tracon tower : atl.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 3800 flight time type : 2000
ASRS Report	558872
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure other anomaly
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : radar other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued advisory controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance Airport ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

On approach to atl (runway 9R), 160 KTS was the assigned speed to the bumey marker on the ILS runway 9R. The first officer was PF. Approximately 7.5 mi out, the first officer began to slow to configure for landing. He slowed to approximately 120 KTS. The controller asked what our current speed was, and I replied 120 KTS. They asked us to speed up to 180 KTS immediately due to traffic behind us. We complied and then approximately 4 mi out, slowed to final approach speed and landed. The tower requested that we call them via the ramp tower. We called and they asked why we slowed too soon and explained why this is such a problem at atl. I apologized. I blame this incident on fatigue (was a continuous duty overnight) and not being attentive to the situation. In addition, the newness of the first officer and his lack of knowledge regarding the necessity of speed control in atl were contributing factors.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN E120 CREW, ON APCH TO ATL, REDUCED SPD BELOW THAT ASSIGNED, PROMPTING A QUERY FROM ATC.

Narrative: ON APCH TO ATL (RWY 9R), 160 KTS WAS THE ASSIGNED SPD TO THE BUMEY MARKER ON THE ILS RWY 9R. THE FO WAS PF. APPROX 7.5 MI OUT, THE FO BEGAN TO SLOW TO CONFIGURE FOR LNDG. HE SLOWED TO APPROX 120 KTS. THE CTLR ASKED WHAT OUR CURRENT SPD WAS, AND I REPLIED 120 KTS. THEY ASKED US TO SPD UP TO 180 KTS IMMEDIATELY DUE TO TFC BEHIND US. WE COMPLIED AND THEN APPROX 4 MI OUT, SLOWED TO FINAL APCH SPD AND LANDED. THE TWR REQUESTED THAT WE CALL THEM VIA THE RAMP TWR. WE CALLED AND THEY ASKED WHY WE SLOWED TOO SOON AND EXPLAINED WHY THIS IS SUCH A PROB AT ATL. I APOLOGIZED. I BLAME THIS INCIDENT ON FATIGUE (WAS A CONTINUOUS DUTY OVERNIGHT) AND NOT BEING ATTENTIVE TO THE SIT. IN ADDITION, THE NEWNESS OF THE FO AND HIS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE NECESSITY OF SPD CTL IN ATL WERE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS.

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.