Narrative:

The following situation has occurred to me in the last few yrs: while in instrument meteorological conditions, various approach control facilities throughout the united states have asked me to maintain a speed to the ILS OM which was 30-60 KTS above the aircraft stabilized approach speed. In many instances, the OM was not even 1500 ft AGL and thus, accepting this clearance would clearly violate company stabilized approach criteria. In the past, I have gone into the company flight office and brought this matter up with flight mgrs. In one case, I remember speaking directly with the assistant chief pilot. He told me that I was applying the stabilized approach criteria correctly and was right in not accepting that sort of airspeed to the OM. For a while, such clrncs by chicago approach control appeared to subside, however, the situation now has reappeared. In fact, recently in 3 separate flts to O'hare, approach control asked for an airspeed to the OM with which I could not legally comply. So, I copied the ACARS ATIS reports and again submitted them to the flight office for action. Their recommendation was to submit a report. O'hare approach control is not alone in issuing such clrncs. I also had this happen at lga on runway 4 where approach control requested 170 KTS to peths OM. In this instance, I had an FAA asi on the jumpseat giving the crew an en route check. Denver approach has done this several times as well. Even though the FAF is above 1500 ft AGL (typically 1600-1650 ft) in all their ILS approachs, they often ask for 180 or 190 KTS to the FAF and it is impossible to go from that speed to vref +10 KTS in 100-150 ft on descent. Thus, if a pilot accepted 190 KTS at 1600 ft, he or she could not reduce to stabilized approach speed to meet company criteria.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC AIRSPD ASSIGNMENTS WITH A RESTR REQUIRING HIM TO FLY IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH HIS COMPANY'S STABILIZED APCH POLICY IS A CONCERN TO AN A320 PLT.

Narrative: THE FOLLOWING SIT HAS OCCURRED TO ME IN THE LAST FEW YRS: WHILE IN INST METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS, VARIOUS APCH CTL FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES HAVE ASKED ME TO MAINTAIN A SPD TO THE ILS OM WHICH WAS 30-60 KTS ABOVE THE ACFT STABILIZED APCH SPD. IN MANY INSTANCES, THE OM WAS NOT EVEN 1500 FT AGL AND THUS, ACCEPTING THIS CLRNC WOULD CLRLY VIOLATE COMPANY STABILIZED APCH CRITERIA. IN THE PAST, I HAVE GONE INTO THE COMPANY FLT OFFICE AND BROUGHT THIS MATTER UP WITH FLT MGRS. IN ONE CASE, I REMEMBER SPEAKING DIRECTLY WITH THE ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT. HE TOLD ME THAT I WAS APPLYING THE STABILIZED APCH CRITERIA CORRECTLY AND WAS RIGHT IN NOT ACCEPTING THAT SORT OF AIRSPD TO THE OM. FOR A WHILE, SUCH CLRNCS BY CHICAGO APCH CTL APPEARED TO SUBSIDE, HOWEVER, THE SIT NOW HAS REAPPEARED. IN FACT, RECENTLY IN 3 SEPARATE FLTS TO O'HARE, APCH CTL ASKED FOR AN AIRSPD TO THE OM WITH WHICH I COULD NOT LEGALLY COMPLY. SO, I COPIED THE ACARS ATIS RPTS AND AGAIN SUBMITTED THEM TO THE FLT OFFICE FOR ACTION. THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO SUBMIT A RPT. O'HARE APCH CTL IS NOT ALONE IN ISSUING SUCH CLRNCS. I ALSO HAD THIS HAPPEN AT LGA ON RWY 4 WHERE APCH CTL REQUESTED 170 KTS TO PETHS OM. IN THIS INSTANCE, I HAD AN FAA ASI ON THE JUMPSEAT GIVING THE CREW AN ENRTE CHK. DENVER APCH HAS DONE THIS SEVERAL TIMES AS WELL. EVEN THOUGH THE FAF IS ABOVE 1500 FT AGL (TYPICALLY 1600-1650 FT) IN ALL THEIR ILS APCHS, THEY OFTEN ASK FOR 180 OR 190 KTS TO THE FAF AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GO FROM THAT SPD TO VREF +10 KTS IN 100-150 FT ON DSCNT. THUS, IF A PLT ACCEPTED 190 KTS AT 1600 FT, HE OR SHE COULD NOT REDUCE TO STABILIZED APCH SPD TO MEET COMPANY CRITERIA.

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.