Narrative:

We were coming into dfw late at night; and had no other traffic noted at the time of our check on with dfw TRACON. We were given a decent to 6000 then 3000 then cleared for the visual pproach to 17R. The controller asked us to keep our speed up and gave us a 300-310 heading; which would be 140 degree turn to final. After we were cleared for the visual approach; we felt there was insufficient time and space to have the aircraft in a stable condition from our present position. We then turned to a heading of north briefly then west. At this point the controller asked us why we turned. I answered that we were cleared for the visual approach. The controller the asked us to turn towards the airport. We executed the turn and made a standard pattern to the marker configured and landed. The controller never mentioned traffic and had we not heard radio calls; we wouldn't have known why he was querying us. I informed the controller that we were cleared the visual approach. Which my understanding allows us to do a standard pattern to a normal landing. If we had continued on his heading and direction; there would have been no way we could have executed a stable approach per our aom. The first officer did the correct maneuver in my opinion and gave the customer a stable and uneventful approach. There were never any conflicts that I was aware of; but the controller's tone and inflection made me feel the report was necessary. I subsequently asked the tower controller for the TRACON phone number and called the supervisor upon landing. He also agreed that there was no conflict but was very unaware of our procedures. I told him that the aircraft had to be configured and spooled at 1000'. I also said that we cannot deviate from that. He said he understood our point and would relay the information to the appropriate people. He also stated that we could have told the controller before our turn; I agreed but also added it was not required. I have also given a complete narrative by phone of this to the assistant chief pilot. Who agreed with our performance and reasoning. ATC needs to be briefed on current company procedures and given and idea how and what it takes to land each of the fleet types; the difference between the performance is measurable. I am not sure that ATC realizes the time and space needed to land a 737. On my part; I will become more vocal to the controllers; letting them know of our plans to execute a visual pattern.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier cleared for visual approach to DFW altered flight track to allow for company stabilized approach procedure prompting ATC questions regarding turns away from the airport.

Narrative: We were coming into DFW late at night; and had no other traffic noted at the time of our check on with DFW TRACON. We were given a decent to 6000 then 3000 then cleared for the visual pproach to 17R. The controller asked us to keep our speed up and gave us a 300-310 heading; which would be 140 degree turn to final. After we were cleared for the visual approach; we felt there was insufficient time and space to have the aircraft in a stable condition from our present position. We then turned to a heading of North briefly then west. At this point the controller asked us why we turned. I answered that we were cleared for the visual approach. The controller the asked us to turn towards the airport. We executed the turn and made a standard pattern to the marker configured and landed. The controller never mentioned traffic and had we not heard radio calls; we wouldn't have known why he was querying us. I informed the controller that we were cleared the visual approach. Which my understanding allows us to do a Standard pattern to a normal landing. If we had continued on his heading and direction; there would have been no way we could have executed a stable approach per our AOM. The First Officer did the correct maneuver in my opinion and gave the customer a stable and uneventful approach. There were never any conflicts that I was aware of; but the controller's tone and inflection made me feel the report was necessary. I subsequently asked the tower controller for the TRACON phone number and called the supervisor upon landing. He also agreed that there was no conflict but was very unaware of our procedures. I told him that the aircraft had to be configured and spooled at 1000'. I also said that we cannot deviate from that. He said he understood our point and would relay the information to the appropriate people. He also stated that we could have told the controller before our turn; I agreed but also added it was not required. I have also given a complete narrative by phone of this to the Assistant Chief Pilot. who agreed with our performance and reasoning. ATC needs to be briefed on current company procedures and given and Idea how and what it takes to land each of the fleet types; the difference between the performance is measurable. I am not sure that ATC realizes the time and space needed to land a 737. On my part; I will become more vocal to the controllers; letting them know of our plans to execute a visual pattern.

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.