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.
Synopsis
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.
Second reporter narrative
While flying the RIIVR Arrival into LAX; I was the pilot flying descending with the autopilot on and engaged in VNAV and LNAV. We were descending at 280 KIAS as per the restriction at GRAMM. I had set 280 in the descent page of the FMS and the speed window on the FMC panel was blanked with FLT PATH showing on the FMA. At some point after GRAMM we were handed off by Center to Approach. Approach advised us 'Air carrier X; reduce speed to 250 KTS.' using those EXACT words. I selected speed intervention and set 250 KTS. During the arrival the Captain and I monitored the aircraft progress. I remember commenting on the fact that the FMS profile seemed to want to slow to flaps up maneuver speed rather far out and commented that I would stay in Speed Intervention as a result. At some point; I cannot recall exactly where; the Controller cleared us via the RIVER transition and then cleared us for the ILS 24R approach. No speed assignment was given. I maintained 250 KTS. Approximately 20 miles from touchdown I began dialing back the speed in preparation for configuring and landing. At 17.6 miles from touchdown ATC asked; 'Air carrier X; say speed.' The Captain replied; 'Slowing through 220 KTS.' ATC replied; 'Well; I assigned you 250 KTS. Since you can't do what I told you I am breaking you off the approach.' He then shot off rapid fire instructions to turn to 340; descend to 4;000 FT and expect vectors. In point of fact: 1.) he had never assigned us 250 KTS - rather he had merely told us to slow to 250 KTS (from 280 KTS) way out on the arrival and then later cleared us for the approach. In my mind that meant speed was at my discretion. 2.) 220 KTS (and slowing) at 17 miles in a -700 is not unreasonable and is no different from what I have seen many times flying into LAX. In response to ATC I disengaged the autopilot; turned; and continued descending. In a response to his harping about speed; I let the aircraft accelerate to 250 KTS; having locked that number into my brain as I tried to process what had happened. I apparently heard; but did not process the 180 KTS assignment mixed into the heading; altitude; and editorial comments. Presumably the Captain went through a similar moment of shock [not processing] the 180 KTS assignment. As we turned the Controlled said; 'Because you can't follow instructions expect a 10 mile vector.' I was really ticked at his tone; angry at what had happened; and still trying to recall exactly when I might have missed the 250 KTS assignment. The Captain tried to politely assert that we hadn't been given a speed and that we were on the approach segment with speed our own discretion. ATC replied angrily that he had assigned us 250 KTS and rather than argue the Captain did not reply. At this point I had stabilized on the new heading and altitude; but at 250 KTS. At which point ATC said; 'Air carrier X; you didn't maintain 250 when I assigned it now you aren't maintaining the 180 I assigned. Tell me what speed you are going to fly since you cannot follow instructions.' I was stunned at his tone. The Captain merely said; '180;' as I rapidly slowed the jet. The remainder of the approach proceeded normally with 1 or 2 more sarcastic remarks by ATC; all in all very unprofessional behavior by ATC.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.