MD80 on final at stl is unable to comply with ATC instructions and is issued go around.

Attributes
ACN	596298
Time
Date	200310
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : stl.airport
State Reference	MO
Altitude	msl single value : 5000
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : t75.tracon tower : stl.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tracon : t75.tracon tower : stl.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Transport
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	596298
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : executed go around
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

Being vectored to runway 30L, approach told us of parallel traffic landing on runway 30R. We had traffic in sight, but were told not to pass them on our approach to runway 30L. Unfortunately, we were grossly mismatched speed wise, and we had been kept high and fast on approach. We tried our best to stay even with the other traffic we were sent to tower. Tower cleared us to land. Despite our best efforts, we were unable to stay even with the commuter traffic for runway 30R. At the same time, tower cleared another aircraft to take off on runway 30L. I felt boxed in, slowly creeping forward of the other traffic, but also aware of the problem with a go around with the aircraft just taking runway 30L. About the time I decided to go around, tower instructed us to do so. We were resequenced and landed without incident. I should have stated we would be unable to comply with approach in staying behind the runway 30R traffic. Surely, ATC knows turboprops and MD80S do not always have the same approach airspds. I will be certain they never do this to me again.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80 ON FINAL AT STL IS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH ATC INSTRUCTIONS AND IS ISSUED GAR.

Narrative: BEING VECTORED TO RWY 30L, APCH TOLD US OF PARALLEL TFC LNDG ON RWY 30R. WE HAD TFC IN SIGHT, BUT WERE TOLD NOT TO PASS THEM ON OUR APCH TO RWY 30L. UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE GROSSLY MISMATCHED SPD WISE, AND WE HAD BEEN KEPT HIGH AND FAST ON APCH. WE TRIED OUR BEST TO STAY EVEN WITH THE OTHER TFC WE WERE SENT TO TWR. TWR CLRED US TO LAND. DESPITE OUR BEST EFFORTS, WE WERE UNABLE TO STAY EVEN WITH THE COMMUTER TFC FOR RWY 30R. AT THE SAME TIME, TWR CLRED ANOTHER ACFT TO TAKE OFF ON RWY 30L. I FELT BOXED IN, SLOWLY CREEPING FORWARD OF THE OTHER TFC, BUT ALSO AWARE OF THE PROB WITH A GAR WITH THE ACFT JUST TAKING RWY 30L. ABOUT THE TIME I DECIDED TO GO AROUND, TWR INSTRUCTED US TO DO SO. WE WERE RESEQUENCED AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. I SHOULD HAVE STATED WE WOULD BE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH APCH IN STAYING BEHIND THE RWY 30R TFC. SURELY, ATC KNOWS TURBOPROPS AND MD80S DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME APCH AIRSPDS. I WILL BE CERTAIN THEY NEVER DO THIS TO ME AGAIN.

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.