Air carrier on visual for runway 16R at den initiated slight right turn to stabilize approach given ...

Narrative:

We were assigned numerous speeds throughout the arrival and approach to landing increases and decreases. Cleared to the FAF for visual approach and told to hold 210 until told otherwise. Once controller realized we were rapidly approaching the company aircraft ahead; controller instructed us to slow to 170 and then immediately to 160. We were on track to be in the stable approach window then were high due to the reduction in airspeed. Soon after our final reduction; the controller cleared us for the visual approach; we had parallel traffic and preceding company traffic in sight. We adjusted rate of descent and made two shallow turns to the right of center line of 16R. We never went left of the 16R center line. Before our hand off to tower; the controller asked if we could make the runway. We instructed the controller we could; and continued the approach; meeting all stable approach criteria. Upon landing we were asked to call TRACON. I was told that the heading of aircraft could not deviate from that of the runway and that the closeness of the runways caused this in den. The final controller asked if we were able to make the runway and we acknowledged yes. ATC did us no favors throughout this approach and landing evolution. I can only think now that we were too eager to accommodate ATC. We had the runway; the preceding aircraft (company 3.5 miles ahead); and the aircraft for the parallel runway in sight at all times. Preventative measures: I can only think that we as aviators must refuse the speed assigned by ATC as unable. The only problem with this is we can do the first; and then when we can't comply with the follow-on speeds; then we go around. Yes; we could have gone around; but I elected to continue to land and had a stabilized approach. Crew should have denied airspeed restrictions and queried ATC of airspeed assignment and conflict rapidly approaching ahead. ATC approach controller should have been aware of rapidly approaching conflict due to speed assignment. ATC needs to communicate problems or issues that arise during a visual approach. I'm not sure ATC definition and pilot definition of a visual approach match.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier on visual for Runway 16R at DEN initiated slight right turn to stabilize approach given ATC's speed assignments; ATC questioned pilots action with regard to parallel operation/s.

Narrative: We were assigned numerous speeds throughout the arrival and approach to landing increases and decreases. Cleared to the FAF for visual approach and told to hold 210 until told otherwise. Once Controller realized we were rapidly approaching the Company aircraft ahead; Controller instructed us to slow to 170 and then immediately to 160. We were on track to be in the stable approach window then were high due to the reduction in airspeed. Soon after our final reduction; the Controller cleared us for the visual approach; we had parallel traffic and preceding Company traffic in sight. We adjusted rate of descent and made two shallow turns to the right of center line of 16R. We never went left of the 16R center line. Before our hand off to Tower; the Controller asked if we could make the runway. We instructed the Controller we could; and continued the approach; meeting all stable approach criteria. Upon landing we were asked to call TRACON. I was told that the heading of aircraft could not deviate from that of the runway and that the closeness of the runways caused this in DEN. The final Controller asked if we were able to make the runway and we acknowledged yes. ATC did us no favors throughout this approach and landing evolution. I can only think now that we were too eager to accommodate ATC. We had the runway; the preceding aircraft (Company 3.5 miles ahead); and the aircraft for the parallel runway in sight at all times. Preventative measures: I can only think that we as aviators must refuse the speed assigned by ATC as unable. The only problem with this is we can do the first; and then when we can't comply with the follow-on speeds; then we go around. Yes; we could have gone around; but I elected to continue to land and had a stabilized approach. Crew should have denied airspeed restrictions and queried ATC of airspeed assignment and conflict rapidly approaching ahead. ATC Approach Controller should have been aware of rapidly approaching conflict due to speed assignment. ATC needs to communicate problems or issues that arise during a visual approach. I'm not sure ATC definition and pilot definition of a visual approach match.

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.

Attributes
ACN	858323
Time
Date	200911
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	DEN.Airport
State Reference	CO
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	First Officer
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 163
Person 2
Function	Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 220
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types

Air carrier on visual for runway 16R at den initiated slight right turn to stabilize approach given ATC's speed assignments; ATC questioned pilots action with regard to parallel operation/s.