B737-700 flight crew inbound to lax on the RIVVR2 STAR reported unprofessional controller behavior w...

Narrative:

On the riivr 2 arrival into lax we were slowed by socal from the assigned 280 KTS on the STAR to 250 KTS and cleared to descend via the STAR for runway 24R. The first officer maintained the 250 KTS and now being on an approach segment he started to slow to masi flap up speed. At about 16 miles from the end of the runway and decelerating through 220 KTS; socal asked for our airspeed. I replied; '220 KTS;' and then we received a verbal bashing from the controller that we were not assigned to slow from 250 KTS. He then proceeded to pull us off the approach to vector us behind the aircraft following us. He quickly gave us 4;000 ft altitude; a turn to the right 070 degrees. Because of the verbal berating we missed the airspeed assignment of 180 KTS. The first officer assumed that since he wanted 250 KTS; he began to accelerate. The quick change increased our workload and we completely missed the speed. We then slowed to 180 KTS. The controller continued to berate us and then wanted to know; 'what kind of speed to expect from us?' he then assigned us 180 KTS to jetsa after re-clearing us for the approach. This speed is contrary to the as soon as possible and company tailored pages in the commercial chart manual. The controller insisted that his clearance to 250 KTS earlier meant that we were to maintain that until he told us to slow; but that was not the phraseology that we got. We were never told to; 'maintain 250 until further advised.' therefore; with all the previous safety reports of unstabilized approaches; slowing through 220 KTS at 16 miles was not unreasonable to us. If we had to maintain 250 KTS at that point we would have had an unstablized approach. The controller was unprofessional and used non standard phraseology. He felt that assigning the speed 250 on the arrival meant we were to maintain that on the approach segment as well. His constant verbal berating was distracting. If he had told us to maintain 250 that close would have been unrealistic and contrary to our operations and he needs to review proper speed assignments for the approach phase. I do not understand why the aircraft behind us could not slow and why it was so important to punish us verbally and removing us from the approach.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 flight crew inbound to LAX on the RIVVR2 STAR reported unprofessional controller behavior with regard to speed assignments; taken off the approach and re-sequenced.

Narrative: On the RIIVR 2 Arrival into LAX we were slowed by SoCal from the assigned 280 KTS on the STAR to 250 KTS and cleared to descend via the STAR for Runway 24R. The First Officer maintained the 250 KTS and now being on an approach segment he started to slow to MASI flap up speed. At about 16 miles from the end of the runway and decelerating through 220 KTS; SoCal asked for our airspeed. I replied; '220 KTS;' and then we received a verbal bashing from the Controller that we were not assigned to slow from 250 KTS. He then proceeded to pull us off the approach to vector us behind the aircraft following us. He quickly gave us 4;000 FT altitude; a turn to the right 070 degrees. Because of the verbal berating we missed the airspeed assignment of 180 KTS. The First Officer assumed that since he wanted 250 KTS; he began to accelerate. The quick change increased our workload and we completely missed the speed. We then slowed to 180 KTS. The Controller continued to berate us and then wanted to know; 'What kind of speed to expect from us?' He then assigned us 180 KTS to JETSA after re-clearing us for the approach. This speed is contrary to the ASAP and company tailored pages in the Commercial Chart Manual. The Controller insisted that his clearance to 250 KTS earlier meant that we were to maintain that until he told us to slow; but that was not the phraseology that we got. We were never told to; 'Maintain 250 until further advised.' Therefore; with all the previous safety reports of unstabilized approaches; slowing through 220 KTS at 16 miles was not unreasonable to us. If we had to maintain 250 KTS at that point we would have had an unstablized approach. The Controller was unprofessional and used non standard phraseology. He felt that assigning the speed 250 on the arrival meant we were to maintain that on the approach segment as well. His constant verbal berating was distracting. If he had told us to maintain 250 that close would have been unrealistic and contrary to our operations and he needs to review proper speed assignments for the approach phase. I do not understand why the aircraft behind us could not slow and why it was so important to punish us verbally and removing us from the approach.

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	903074
Time
Date	201008
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	SCT.TRACON
State Reference	CA
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B737-700
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	STAR RIIVR 2
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Not Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 166
Person 2
Function	Pilot Flying First Officer
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 144 Flight Crew Type 144
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Speed All Types

B737-700 flight crew inbound to lax on the RIVVR2 STAR reported unprofessional controller behavior with regard to speed assignments; taken off the approach and re-sequenced.