Pilot complains regarding pct's speed control techniques during approach to iad.

Attributes
ACN	659347
Time
Date	200504
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : iad.airport
State Reference	VA
Altitude	msl single value : 3000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Weather Elements	Turbulence
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : pct.tracon
Operator	common carrier : charter
Make Model Name	Light Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : 19r
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : instrument precision
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : charter
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 60 flight time total : 6000 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	659347
Person 2
Affiliation	company : charter
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance

Narrative:

ATC was very confusing during approach. First they gave a speed to maintain then they changed and cleared us for the approach. So we started to configure aircraft for the approach. During this profile speed was reduced for turbulence and to configure aircraft for landing. ATC called and asked us; 'are you slowing?' we started that 'we are correcting and speeding up.' a few seconds later; another controller told us that our clearance was canceled and to maintain speed and heading; climb to 3000 ft MSL. We complied; but this should not have happened. Bad communication and poor planning on ATC's part. We the pilots have to be able to configure the aircraft for landing. ATC must understand this. Safety is always first. No reason was given for this bad planning on ATC's part. All company and afm procedures were followed. ATC requests and instructions caused undue procedures on the crew. Improvements are in communicating and planning. Some better standards for mixing different types of aircraft. Understanding of WX conditions and the effect it has on the aircraft.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT COMPLAINS REGARDING PCT'S SPD CTL TECHNIQUES DURING APCH TO IAD.

Narrative: ATC WAS VERY CONFUSING DURING APCH. FIRST THEY GAVE A SPD TO MAINTAIN THEN THEY CHANGED AND CLRED US FOR THE APCH. SO WE STARTED TO CONFIGURE ACFT FOR THE APCH. DURING THIS PROFILE SPD WAS REDUCED FOR TURB AND TO CONFIGURE ACFT FOR LNDG. ATC CALLED AND ASKED US; 'ARE YOU SLOWING?' WE STARTED THAT 'WE ARE CORRECTING AND SPEEDING UP.' A FEW SECONDS LATER; ANOTHER CTLR TOLD US THAT OUR CLRNC WAS CANCELED AND TO MAINTAIN SPD AND HDG; CLB TO 3000 FT MSL. WE COMPLIED; BUT THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. BAD COM AND POOR PLANNING ON ATC'S PART. WE THE PLTS HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CONFIGURE THE ACFT FOR LNDG. ATC MUST UNDERSTAND THIS. SAFETY IS ALWAYS FIRST. NO REASON WAS GIVEN FOR THIS BAD PLANNING ON ATC'S PART. ALL COMPANY AND AFM PROCS WERE FOLLOWED. ATC REQUESTS AND INSTRUCTIONS CAUSED UNDUE PROCS ON THE CREW. IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN COMMUNICATING AND PLANNING. SOME BETTER STANDARDS FOR MIXING DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACFT. UNDERSTANDING OF WX CONDITIONS AND THE EFFECT IT HAS ON THE ACFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.