37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 710737 |
Time | |
Date | 200609 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : las.airport |
State Reference | NV |
Altitude | msl single value : 6000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : l30.tracon |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B737-300 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Navigation In Use | ils localizer & glide slope : 25l |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Route In Use | approach : instrument precision |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 178 flight time type : 4500 |
ASRS Report | 710737 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Events | |
Anomaly | other anomaly |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | flight crew : executed go around |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Aircraft ATC Human Performance Weather |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
We were on arrival to las runway 25L. The controller had kept us high on the arrival to space us from traffic for us to follow that was difficult to acquire. He also kept us at 170 KTS. I don't remember the exact DME at which he cleared us for the visual approach; about 12 DME. We were 3 mi behind traffic in front of us; we were at 170 KTS; flaps 10 degrees; 8 KTS of direct tailwind and all white lights on the PAPI. He told us to maintain 170 KTS to 7 DME. I felt under those conditions that we could not maintain 170 KTS; stay spaced behind the aircraft in front of us and comply with our required approach confign parameters. I told the controller something to the effect of; 'I don't think we can maintain 170 KTS and get down.' his response was an immediate and irritated; 'go around; maintain 6000 ft; turn left' etc. We complied and it was more than obvious he was very upset with us. He next said in a rude tone again; 'I will still need you to maintain 170 KTS to 7 DME!' I said 'it's no problem if we're not high.' he literally yelled back at us; 'you were 6000 ft at 13 DME; I've never had an aircraft not be able to comply with that clearance but I'm not going to argue with you!' I'm writing this because it's the third time in the past 6 months I've had extremely unprofessional and downright rude handling by las approach. I'm sick of these guys literally yelling at us when we're just trying to comply with their sometimes difficult instructions. We try our absolute best to be efficient and comply with their instructions but we also must comply with our confign parameters and use good judgement. The las approach controllers need to understand that yelling at pilots and acting unprofessionally only makes a stressful situation worse. I will accept blame when it's due and perhaps I was too conservative in this situation but these types of responses are unacceptable.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737-300 FLT CREW ENCOUNTERS UNPROFESSIONAL RESPONSE FROM L30 CTLR WHEN UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH SPD RESTRS.
Narrative: WE WERE ON ARR TO LAS RWY 25L. THE CTLR HAD KEPT US HIGH ON THE ARR TO SPACE US FROM TFC FOR US TO FOLLOW THAT WAS DIFFICULT TO ACQUIRE. HE ALSO KEPT US AT 170 KTS. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DME AT WHICH HE CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH; ABOUT 12 DME. WE WERE 3 MI BEHIND TFC IN FRONT OF US; WE WERE AT 170 KTS; FLAPS 10 DEGS; 8 KTS OF DIRECT TAILWIND AND ALL WHITE LIGHTS ON THE PAPI. HE TOLD US TO MAINTAIN 170 KTS TO 7 DME. I FELT UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS THAT WE COULD NOT MAINTAIN 170 KTS; STAY SPACED BEHIND THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US AND COMPLY WITH OUR REQUIRED APCH CONFIGN PARAMETERS. I TOLD THE CTLR SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF; 'I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAINTAIN 170 KTS AND GET DOWN.' HIS RESPONSE WAS AN IMMEDIATE AND IRRITATED; 'GO AROUND; MAINTAIN 6000 FT; TURN L' ETC. WE COMPLIED AND IT WAS MORE THAN OBVIOUS HE WAS VERY UPSET WITH US. HE NEXT SAID IN A RUDE TONE AGAIN; 'I WILL STILL NEED YOU TO MAINTAIN 170 KTS TO 7 DME!' I SAID 'IT'S NO PROB IF WE'RE NOT HIGH.' HE LITERALLY YELLED BACK AT US; 'YOU WERE 6000 FT AT 13 DME; I'VE NEVER HAD AN ACFT NOT BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THAT CLRNC BUT I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU!' I'M WRITING THIS BECAUSE IT'S THE THIRD TIME IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS I'VE HAD EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL AND DOWNRIGHT RUDE HANDLING BY LAS APCH. I'M SICK OF THESE GUYS LITERALLY YELLING AT US WHEN WE'RE JUST TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR SOMETIMES DIFFICULT INSTRUCTIONS. WE TRY OUR ABSOLUTE BEST TO BE EFFICIENT AND COMPLY WITH THEIR INSTRUCTIONS BUT WE ALSO MUST COMPLY WITH OUR CONFIGN PARAMETERS AND USE GOOD JUDGEMENT. THE LAS APCH CTLRS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT YELLING AT PLTS AND ACTING UNPROFESSIONALLY ONLY MAKES A STRESSFUL SITUATION WORSE. I WILL ACCEPT BLAME WHEN IT'S DUE AND PERHAPS I WAS TOO CONSERVATIVE IN THIS SITUATION BUT THESE TYPES OF RESPONSES ARE UNACCEPTABLE.
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.