Narrative:

This is continuing problem with approach controllers in the northeast with weather systems passing thru; i.e. Having a tailwind on the early portion of the approach only turning around to a headwind during the last 1000' of the approach. Controllers (as a general observation from years of flying in the northeast) do not seem to understand that with a tailwind; a slower airspeed is required in order to stay on a 3 degree glideslope and meet stabilized approach parameters that is such an important part of aviation safety. I have had this problem both in dca; lga (not letting us land on runway 4 due to a tailwind in the early portion of the approach and using runway 22 which does not have as good minimums) and in bos also not allowing us to use runway 4 which has CAT III minimums and requiring us to use ILS 22 which does not have those minimums; due to tailwind in the early portion of the approach. Controllers seem wired to assigning a minimum airspeed to the FAF; such as 180 KTS; which is simply too fast when dealing with a 30 KT tailwind in the early portion of the approach. When controllers are advised that there is a tailwind and a slower speed is required; I have found it more likely to receive pressure from the controller to continue the approach as opposed to letting the pilot fly the aircraft at the speed required under the prevailing conditions. In this circumstance in may 2009; I was told by the controller that 'I have a nice holding pattern for you.' in april; under similar conditions in bos; the controller advised me that 'no one has a problem with that speed' (or words to that effect). Approach controllers in the northeast in general are not letting pilots fly their aircraft and seem to place a priority on airspeed assignments to the FAF which increases the possibility of an unstabilized approach resulting in a go-around; as opposed to letting the pilot fly at a reduced airspeed necessary for safe completion of the approach; when dealing with tailwinds in the early portion of the approach.dca approach was using the lda to runway 19; which put us at higher landing minimums. Two aircraft requested approach to use ILS 1 due to better landing minimums with an ILS approach as compared to an RNAV approach; but dca approach refused. In fact I was told 'if you don't like it; I have a nice holding pattern for you.' (or words to that effect) the only problem was that on the ILS approach landing to the north; there was a tail wind in the early portion of the approach; with the wind swinging around during the later portion of the approach. I advised the approach controller that I could do the ILS 1 approach as long as I could fly at a reduced airspeed. The controller still refused to turn the airport around. We barely got in on the RNAV approach due to rising fog that was occurring with the temperature decreasing to the due point; and advised tower that they were about to start having a problem on the approaches to runway 19. By the time I got to the crew parking lot; the approach in use was ILS 1. They had finally turned the approach around which shows they could do it; the controller was simply refusing to comply with requests of at least two aircraft when I was in the approach phase.there evidently needs to be phraseology in the controller's guidebook that requires the final approach controller to respect instructions from the pilot of an aircraft when an assigned airspeed in too fast for the prevailing conditions. Comments from the controller designed to 'pressure the pilot' to comply with assigned speeds should be specifically not be allowed. I realize there are operational demands associated with flying into congested airports such as dca; lga; and bos; but safety needs to be placed once again as the overriding consideration; and final approach controllers need to be instructed that when a pilot says an assigned speed is too fast; the controller will make the necessary adjustments on the final approachsegment (spacing) to allow the pilot on final approach to complete their approach; as opposed to trying to pressure the pilot into complying with a controller assigned speed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier Captain voiced concern regarding ATC handling; i.e.; ATC's speed assignments during tailwind events and aircraft performance limitations; reporter alleging safety should take priority over traffic demands.

Narrative: This is continuing problem with approach controllers in the northeast with weather systems passing thru; i.e. having a tailwind on the early portion of the approach only turning around to a headwind during the last 1000' of the approach. Controllers (as a general observation from years of flying in the northeast) do not seem to understand that with a tailwind; a slower airspeed is required in order to stay on a 3 degree glideslope and meet stabilized approach parameters that is such an important part of aviation safety. I have had this problem both in DCA; LGA (not letting us land on Runway 4 due to a tailwind in the early portion of the approach and using Runway 22 which does not have as good minimums) and in BOS also not allowing us to use Runway 4 which has CAT III minimums and requiring us to use ILS 22 which does not have those minimums; due to tailwind in the early portion of the approach. Controllers seem wired to assigning a minimum airspeed to the FAF; such as 180 KTS; which is simply too fast when dealing with a 30 KT tailwind in the early portion of the approach. When controllers are advised that there is a tailwind and a slower speed is required; I have found it more likely to receive pressure from the Controller to continue the approach as opposed to letting the pilot fly the aircraft at the speed required under the prevailing conditions. In this circumstance in May 2009; I was told by the Controller that 'I have a nice holding pattern for you.' In April; under similar conditions in BOS; the Controller advised me that 'No one has a problem with that speed' (or words to that effect). Approach controllers in the northeast in general are not letting pilots fly their aircraft and seem to place a priority on airspeed assignments to the FAF which increases the possibility of an unstabilized approach resulting in a go-around; as opposed to letting the pilot fly at a reduced airspeed necessary for safe completion of the approach; when dealing with tailwinds in the early portion of the approach.DCA approach was using the LDA to Runway 19; which put us at higher landing minimums. Two aircraft requested approach to use ILS 1 due to better landing minimums with an ILS approach as compared to an RNAV approach; but DCA approach refused. In fact I was told 'if you don't like it; I have a nice holding pattern for you.' (or words to that effect) The only problem was that on the ILS approach landing to the north; there was a tail wind in the early portion of the approach; with the wind swinging around during the later portion of the approach. I advised the Approach Controller that I could do the ILS 1 approach as long as I could fly at a reduced airspeed. The Controller still refused to turn the airport around. We barely got in on the RNAV approach due to rising fog that was occurring with the temperature decreasing to the due point; and advised tower that they were about to start having a problem on the approaches to Runway 19. By the time I got to the crew parking lot; the approach in use was ILS 1. They had finally turned the approach around which shows they could do it; the Controller was simply refusing to comply with requests of at least two aircraft when I was in the approach phase.There evidently needs to be phraseology in the controller's guidebook that requires the final approach controller to respect instructions from the pilot of an aircraft when an assigned airspeed in too fast for the prevailing conditions. Comments from the Controller designed to 'pressure the pilot' to comply with assigned speeds should be specifically not be allowed. I realize there are operational demands associated with flying into congested airports such as DCA; LGA; and BOS; but safety needs to be placed once again as the overriding consideration; and final approach controllers need to be instructed that when a pilot says an assigned speed is too fast; the controller will make the necessary adjustments on the final approachsegment (spacing) to allow the pilot on final approach to complete their approach; as opposed to trying to pressure the pilot into complying with a controller assigned speed.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.