Narrative:

On arrival into sfo norcal gave us speed 280 or better in descent to cross cedes at 11;000'. Then; given step down to 9;000; heading 220 for spacing after cedes. Then; told to slow down to 210; precede direct archie; and maintain 8000. The normal hand-off occurred later than normal (past archie); so we prompted the controller by reporting airport in sight. He said he would pass that on to next controller. Then; given frequency change. We checked in; and controller asked if we had airport in sight. We replied; 'airport in sight'; but received no acknowledgment. There were no aircraft we were being paired with; and our interval in front was over five miles away for 28L. As far as we can tell; ATC was micromanaging an arrival preceding us; and dedicating every radio call to this unnecessary management. Despite calling several times to report airport in sight; we were not given approach clearance; but given a descent to 7000. Then; another descent to 6000. This descent clearance was given well after the trdow; 6000' fix. We level off at 6000'; to cross garow at 6000'where we should be at 4000'. Finally; I say; 'approach; we need either a descent or approach clearance'. Finally; a very frustrated controller says; 'descend to 4000'; can you accept approach clearance'? I replied; 'we have called the airport in sight six times; descending to 4000''. ATC replied; 'we are a little busy here; cleared for the approach'. The captain had to put the gear down nine miles out to get the airplane to descend back onto profile. The comment was made that we were covering for ATC's mistakes; and by lowering the gear so early (so much drag; so much fuel burn; so much waste); we were lulling ATC into thinking their actions were okay and had no consequence. I write this because today was not the first time we've seen this. [Nct] controllers are micromanaging aircraft; even after the airplane reports airport in sight. I mostly fly into jfk; ord; and den; where controllers have a lot more experience with high volumes of traffic. Even so; they can handle it. At sfo; even on a VFR day with light volume; the ATC controllers allow themselves to get bogged down. They do this to themselves by issuing unnecessary; or redundant; instructions. When you tell an aircraft to maintain visual separation (which we did not get today); and you are clear which aircraft is leading; you can count on the pilots to follow that instruction. You don't need every controller; at every check-in; to repeat that instruction. Or; the same controller to repeat themselves; two or three times. We get it. And; if you are going to limit an airplane's descent by micromanaging; and you get bogged down and can't (or won't) issue the visual approach clearance; you are setting that airplane up for an unstable descent later on; or a go around. If there is no safety reason to limit a pilot's vertical profile to other than what is published on the RNAV profile; then don't tinker; don't issue unnecessary instructions; just clear him for the RNAV approach. If it's speed you want; or separation you're looking for; tell the pilot. But; keeping us high for no reason or micromanaging our speeds in an effort to perfect separation is a misguided use of resources. At jfk; when we report the airport; they clear us for the visual as they point out the preceding aircraft and say maintain visual separation. Then; they cut us loose. They know we know our jobs. Let us do it. Micromanaging leads to noise on the radios; reduces efficiency; increases the likelihood of unstable approaches and forces the pilot to do extraordinary feats of piloting to get the profile back under control.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier landing at SFO and kept high on the landing profile voiced concern regarding the handling by NCT as compared to other ATC facilities.

Narrative: On arrival into SFO NORCAL gave us speed 280 or better in descent to cross CEDES at 11;000'. Then; given step down to 9;000; heading 220 for spacing after CEDES. Then; told to slow down to 210; precede direct ARCHIE; and maintain 8000. The normal hand-off occurred later than normal (past ARCHIE); so we prompted the controller by reporting airport in sight. He said he would pass that on to next controller. Then; given frequency change. We checked in; and controller asked if we had airport in sight. We replied; 'Airport in sight'; but received no acknowledgment. There were no aircraft we were being paired with; and our interval in front was over five miles away for 28L. As far as we can tell; ATC was micromanaging an arrival preceding us; and dedicating every radio call to this unnecessary management. Despite calling several times to report airport in sight; we were not given approach clearance; but given a descent to 7000. Then; another descent to 6000. This descent clearance was given well after the TRDOW; 6000' fix. We level off at 6000'; to cross GAROW at 6000'where we should be at 4000'. Finally; I say; 'Approach; we need either a descent or approach clearance'. Finally; a very frustrated controller says; 'descend to 4000'; can you accept approach clearance'? I replied; 'We have called the airport in sight six times; descending to 4000''. ATC replied; 'We are a little busy here; cleared for the approach'. The Captain had to put the gear down nine miles out to get the airplane to descend back onto profile. The comment was made that we were covering for ATC's mistakes; and by lowering the gear so early (so much drag; so much fuel burn; so much waste); we were lulling ATC into thinking their actions were okay and had no consequence. I write this because today was not the first time we've seen this. [NCT] controllers are micromanaging aircraft; even after the airplane reports airport in sight. I mostly fly into JFK; ORD; and DEN; where controllers have a lot more experience with high volumes of traffic. Even so; they can handle it. At SFO; even on a VFR day with light volume; the ATC controllers allow themselves to get bogged down. They do this to themselves by issuing unnecessary; or redundant; instructions. When you tell an aircraft to maintain visual separation (which we did not get today); and you are clear which aircraft is leading; you can count on the pilots to follow that instruction. You don't need every controller; at every check-in; to repeat that instruction. Or; the same controller to repeat themselves; two or three times. We get it. And; if you are going to limit an airplane's descent by micromanaging; and you get bogged down and can't (or won't) issue the visual approach clearance; you are setting that airplane up for an unstable descent later on; or a go around. If there is no safety reason to limit a pilot's vertical profile to other than what is published on the RNAV profile; then don't tinker; don't issue unnecessary instructions; just clear him for the RNAV approach. If it's speed you want; or separation you're looking for; tell the pilot. But; keeping us high for no reason or micromanaging our speeds in an effort to perfect separation is a misguided use of resources. At JFK; when we report the airport; they clear us for the visual as they point out the preceding aircraft and say maintain visual separation. Then; they cut us loose. They know we know our jobs. Let us do it. Micromanaging leads to noise on the radios; reduces efficiency; increases the likelihood of unstable approaches and forces the pilot to do extraordinary feats of piloting to get the profile back under control.

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.