Narrative:

On downwind abeam sfo; norcal approach cleared us to descend to 6000 ft. I immediately began configuring the aircraft to the landing confign as it was obvious by the next clearance to 4000 ft that we would be receiving what is known as the 'slam dunk' visual to either of the runway 28's with a tailwind at altitude out of the northwest at 55 KTS. At 6500 ft; fully configured at gear down -- flaps 30 degrees indicating 150 KTS; ATC gave us a base turn abeam brijj. We responded to ATC that we would need a shallow turn in order to be able to descend. He asked us if we saw the airport -- which of course we did; it was clear -- and he cleared us for the visual approach to runway 28R and to maintain 180 KIAS. As the captain and the PF; I responded to ATC that the aircraft was incapable of flying 180 KIAS while fully configured and that we could not comply with the clearance. He then cleared us for the visual to runway 28L and again told us to maintain 180 KIAS. I denied the clearance and norcal approach broke us off and took us on a left downwind for runway 28L. I could not have done more to get the aircraft to descend quicker or faster than I did and that was nowhere close to what he expected. I believe that the operational capabilities of the act are lost on ATC. For example; the B737NG flap speed limitations coupled with the blended winglets simply do not allow the kind of rapid descent that ATC desires; but a B737-400 without winglets has the ability to descend quicker. Or when a heavy B737 classic has a high approach speed; in fact higher than a B747; is following a dash 8; the need to expect that distance to close and appropriately space the aircraft for that occurrence in advance. Furthermore; ATC needs to understand that if we have to slow down to be safe and fly a stabilized approach that the pilot and the aircraft limitations are more important than how many airplanes they can land in an hour.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-700 WAS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH ATC'S SFO 28 BRIDGE VISUAL 180 KT DSNDING TURN REQUEST FROM THE NORTH BECAUSE OF ACFT CHARACTERISTICS.

Narrative: ON DOWNWIND ABEAM SFO; NORCAL APCH CLRED US TO DSND TO 6000 FT. I IMMEDIATELY BEGAN CONFIGURING THE ACFT TO THE LNDG CONFIGN AS IT WAS OBVIOUS BY THE NEXT CLRNC TO 4000 FT THAT WE WOULD BE RECEIVING WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE 'SLAM DUNK' VISUAL TO EITHER OF THE RWY 28'S WITH A TAILWIND AT ALT OUT OF THE NW AT 55 KTS. AT 6500 FT; FULLY CONFIGURED AT GEAR DOWN -- FLAPS 30 DEGS INDICATING 150 KTS; ATC GAVE US A BASE TURN ABEAM BRIJJ. WE RESPONDED TO ATC THAT WE WOULD NEED A SHALLOW TURN IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DSND. HE ASKED US IF WE SAW THE ARPT -- WHICH OF COURSE WE DID; IT WAS CLR -- AND HE CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R AND TO MAINTAIN 180 KIAS. AS THE CAPT AND THE PF; I RESPONDED TO ATC THAT THE ACFT WAS INCAPABLE OF FLYING 180 KIAS WHILE FULLY CONFIGURED AND THAT WE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE CLRNC. HE THEN CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 28L AND AGAIN TOLD US TO MAINTAIN 180 KIAS. I DENIED THE CLRNC AND NORCAL APCH BROKE US OFF AND TOOK US ON A L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 28L. I COULD NOT HAVE DONE MORE TO GET THE ACFT TO DSND QUICKER OR FASTER THAN I DID AND THAT WAS NOWHERE CLOSE TO WHAT HE EXPECTED. I BELIEVE THAT THE OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES OF THE ACT ARE LOST ON ATC. FOR EXAMPLE; THE B737NG FLAP SPD LIMITATIONS COUPLED WITH THE BLENDED WINGLETS SIMPLY DO NOT ALLOW THE KIND OF RAPID DSCNT THAT ATC DESIRES; BUT A B737-400 WITHOUT WINGLETS HAS THE ABILITY TO DSND QUICKER. OR WHEN A HVY B737 CLASSIC HAS A HIGH APCH SPD; IN FACT HIGHER THAN A B747; IS FOLLOWING A DASH 8; THE NEED TO EXPECT THAT DISTANCE TO CLOSE AND APPROPRIATELY SPACE THE ACFT FOR THAT OCCURRENCE IN ADVANCE. FURTHERMORE; ATC NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE HAVE TO SLOW DOWN TO BE SAFE AND FLY A STABILIZED APCH THAT THE PLT AND THE ACFT LIMITATIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOW MANY AIRPLANES THEY CAN LAND IN AN HR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.