Narrative:

At the end of a rather long flight from san diego, we were being vectored for the ILS runway 30R at stl in IFR conditions with moderate mixed icing on the approach. We were instructed to descend to 3600 ft and slow to 170 KTS. Shortly thereafter, we were cleared for the approach. After intercepting the localizer at about 15 mi out, the final controller told us we could increase speed 10 KTS if we wanted. We remained at 170 KTS. We were then handed off to stl tower. Shortly after we passed the final approach fix, the controller instructed us to keep the speed up as long as we could. The captain told the controller that we were heavy IFR and could not keep the speed up in order to make a stable ILS approach. Shortly after this, the controller said cancel approach clearance, climb to 3000 ft and track the localizer. The workload was now at its highest, so instead of tracking the localizer, we requested a heading. The controller instructed us to fly present heading. We were then told to climb to 6000 ft. At this point, we told the controller that we were approaching minimum fuel. He acknowledged this and said we would be vectored for an ILS to runway 24. We were then slowed again to 170 KTS and cleared for the approach shortly thereafter. While on the approach, we listened to the controller tell at least 3 other air carrier's to go around. With this in mind, we declared minimum fuel and told the tower we had to make this a landing. He cleared us to land and we did so without incident. During the 2 approachs, we picked up close to an inch of ice. It was also evident that other pilots were frustrated with the job the controllers were doing at stl. I believe the controllers have a difficult time spacing aircraft when conducting converging ILS approachs to runways 30R and 24. They will often instruct pilots to fly faster than normal for a stabilized approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SITUATIONAL COMPLAINT ON ATC HANDLING AFTER AN MD80 FLT CREW IS GIVEN A GAR WHEN THEIR SPACING FROM OTHER TFC IS SUSPECT AT STL, MO.

Narrative: AT THE END OF A RATHER LONG FLT FROM SAN DIEGO, WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR THE ILS RWY 30R AT STL IN IFR CONDITIONS WITH MODERATE MIXED ICING ON THE APCH. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO DSND TO 3600 FT AND SLOW TO 170 KTS. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH. AFTER INTERCEPTING THE LOC AT ABOUT 15 MI OUT, THE FINAL CTLR TOLD US WE COULD INCREASE SPD 10 KTS IF WE WANTED. WE REMAINED AT 170 KTS. WE WERE THEN HANDED OFF TO STL TWR. SHORTLY AFTER WE PASSED THE FINAL APCH FIX, THE CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO KEEP THE SPD UP AS LONG AS WE COULD. THE CAPT TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE WERE HVY IFR AND COULD NOT KEEP THE SPD UP IN ORDER TO MAKE A STABLE ILS APCH. SHORTLY AFTER THIS, THE CTLR SAID CANCEL APCH CLRNC, CLB TO 3000 FT AND TRACK THE LOC. THE WORKLOAD WAS NOW AT ITS HIGHEST, SO INSTEAD OF TRACKING THE LOC, WE REQUESTED A HEADING. THE CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO FLY PRESENT HEADING. WE WERE THEN TOLD TO CLB TO 6000 FT. AT THIS POINT, WE TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE WERE APCHING MINIMUM FUEL. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THIS AND SAID WE WOULD BE VECTORED FOR AN ILS TO RWY 24. WE WERE THEN SLOWED AGAIN TO 170 KTS AND CLRED FOR THE APCH SHORTLY THEREAFTER. WHILE ON THE APCH, WE LISTENED TO THE CTLR TELL AT LEAST 3 OTHER ACR'S TO GO AROUND. WITH THIS IN MIND, WE DECLARED MINIMUM FUEL AND TOLD THE TWR WE HAD TO MAKE THIS A LNDG. HE CLRED US TO LAND AND WE DID SO WITHOUT INCIDENT. DURING THE 2 APCHS, WE PICKED UP CLOSE TO AN INCH OF ICE. IT WAS ALSO EVIDENT THAT OTHER PLTS WERE FRUSTRATED WITH THE JOB THE CTLRS WERE DOING AT STL. I BELIEVE THE CTLRS HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME SPACING ACFT WHEN CONDUCTING CONVERGING ILS APCHS TO RWYS 30R AND 24. THEY WILL OFTEN INSTRUCT PLTS TO FLY FASTER THAN NORMAL FOR A STABILIZED APCH.

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.