Narrative:

Lots of traffic! Controller says he assigned 170 KTS to a point 3.9 DME from runway. We only remember receiving '170 KTS, maintain 4000', cleared for the approach, contact tower 118.7 (?) at runts (7 DME).' the first officer intercepted G/south at 4000' as instructed and began configuring and slowing. (We had traffic about 3-4 mi ahead, also.) at about 7.9 DME, on final approach, controller called excitedly asking our airspeed. We had just reached 140 KTS, I replied, for final approach. He was absolutely livid! He gave us a choice of increasing immediately to 170 KTS or breaking out. I said we couldn't go back to 170 KTS (by now on a 5 mi final). He said, again, take your choice. I said, 'turn us out.' he did, and we took the 7 min in flight delay for resequencing. I talked to the watch supervisor and we resolved the matter with these conclusions: 1) a miscom had occurred--fault unknown, 2) controller had been unreasonable expecting high airspeed on such a short final (particularly in medium large transport), 3) controller had punished us (supervisor's words), and 4) controller acted on emotion with negative impact. This kind of negative working relationship with ATC is really getting old. FAA must get a grip!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG TAKEN OUT OF APCH SEQUENCE WHEN FLT CREW REFUSES TO INCREASE SPEED.

Narrative: LOTS OF TFC! CTLR SAYS HE ASSIGNED 170 KTS TO A POINT 3.9 DME FROM RWY. WE ONLY REMEMBER RECEIVING '170 KTS, MAINTAIN 4000', CLRED FOR THE APCH, CONTACT TWR 118.7 (?) AT RUNTS (7 DME).' THE F/O INTERCEPTED G/S AT 4000' AS INSTRUCTED AND BEGAN CONFIGURING AND SLOWING. (WE HAD TFC ABOUT 3-4 MI AHEAD, ALSO.) AT ABOUT 7.9 DME, ON FINAL APCH, CTLR CALLED EXCITEDLY ASKING OUR AIRSPD. WE HAD JUST REACHED 140 KTS, I REPLIED, FOR FINAL APCH. HE WAS ABSOLUTELY LIVID! HE GAVE US A CHOICE OF INCREASING IMMEDIATELY TO 170 KTS OR BREAKING OUT. I SAID WE COULDN'T GO BACK TO 170 KTS (BY NOW ON A 5 MI FINAL). HE SAID, AGAIN, TAKE YOUR CHOICE. I SAID, 'TURN US OUT.' HE DID, AND WE TOOK THE 7 MIN IN FLT DELAY FOR RESEQUENCING. I TALKED TO THE WATCH SUPVR AND WE RESOLVED THE MATTER WITH THESE CONCLUSIONS: 1) A MISCOM HAD OCCURRED--FAULT UNKNOWN, 2) CTLR HAD BEEN UNREASONABLE EXPECTING HIGH AIRSPD ON SUCH A SHORT FINAL (PARTICULARLY IN MLG), 3) CTLR HAD PUNISHED US (SUPVR'S WORDS), AND 4) CTLR ACTED ON EMOTION WITH NEGATIVE IMPACT. THIS KIND OF NEGATIVE WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH ATC IS REALLY GETTING OLD. FAA MUST GET A GRIP!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.