Narrative:

I received a briefing including a management mandate requiring every aircraft landing denver to be slowed to 170 knots or slower prior to the FAF. There are no exclusions or exceptions to the rule and the verbiage of the mandate has already been changed a couple times. We were given no training or proficiency time. Management stated there will be no reduction in rates for the adjustment period. There is much confusion in the room as to whether this rule is in effect because only part of the work force has received the briefing. Today I was assigned to work arrivals for the first time since the mandate was supposed to start. I did not have more than five aircraft at a time; but this new rule caused significant impact and additional effort on my final. The first aircraft entered the final with an accelerated ground speed due to a common tail wind. The aircraft was descending appropriately for the visual approach until I remembered I was supposed to slow the aircraft. It is my professional opinion that had I slowed the aircraft at the appropriate time in order to comply with the mandate; the aircraft would no longer have been able to accomplish the rate of descent necessary to conduct a stable approach.the second situation I had to resolve was with another aircraft who was first on approach. I had not yet had enough aircraft on the final to identify the difference in ground speed versus indicated speed. Because I am no longer allowed to assign an aircraft 170 knots or greater; I did not want to assign the aircraft 170 knots in case it was slower than what he was currently doing. The aircraft I was vectoring to follow I had slowed to 170 knots to compensate and it was barely enough. All of this happened inside of 10 miles when I had limited time to make these decisions. This type of situation causes tunnel vision and a lack of awareness; I felt very uncomfortable.first and foremost to remove the mandate and address proficiency issues of improper speed control to the individual on a case by case basis. If that is not an option; proficiency training to teach this new technique. Opportunities to practice this in the lab may help but will be difficult since speeds and winds are unrealistic. A decrease in traffic volume for an adjustment period. Provide some exclusions to the mandate where controllers can utilize their best judgment in cases such as emergencies or operational priority. Consistency in training; dissemination; enforcement and support; everyone needs to be on the same page.watching replays where the 170 knots is utilized in unsafe; efficient and effective manner would be beneficial.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: D01 TRACON has mandated controllers to assign a specific speed to every aircraft at the final approach fix into DEN which led to concerns on specific scenarios.

Narrative: I received a briefing including a management mandate requiring every aircraft landing Denver to be slowed to 170 knots or slower prior to the FAF. There are no exclusions or exceptions to the rule and the verbiage of the mandate has already been changed a couple times. We were given no training or proficiency time. Management stated there will be no reduction in rates for the adjustment period. There is much confusion in the room as to whether this rule is in effect because only part of the work force has received the briefing. Today I was assigned to work arrivals for the first time since the mandate was supposed to start. I did not have more than five aircraft at a time; but this new rule caused significant impact and additional effort on my final. The first aircraft entered the final with an accelerated ground speed due to a common tail wind. The aircraft was descending appropriately for the Visual Approach until I remembered I was supposed to slow the aircraft. It is my professional opinion that had I slowed the aircraft at the appropriate time in order to comply with the mandate; the aircraft would no longer have been able to accomplish the rate of descent necessary to conduct a stable approach.The second situation I had to resolve was with another aircraft who was first on approach. I had not yet had enough aircraft on the final to identify the difference in ground speed versus indicated speed. Because I am no longer allowed to assign an aircraft 170 knots or greater; I did not want to assign the aircraft 170 knots in case it was slower than what he was currently doing. The aircraft I was vectoring to follow I had slowed to 170 knots to compensate and it was barely enough. All of this happened inside of 10 miles when I had limited time to make these decisions. This type of situation causes tunnel vision and a lack of awareness; I felt very uncomfortable.First and foremost to remove the mandate and address proficiency issues of improper speed control to the individual on a case by case basis. If that is not an option; proficiency training to teach this new technique. Opportunities to practice this in the lab may help but will be difficult since speeds and winds are unrealistic. A decrease in traffic volume for an adjustment period. Provide some exclusions to the mandate where controllers can utilize their best judgment in cases such as emergencies or operational priority. Consistency in training; dissemination; enforcement and support; everyone needs to be on the same page.Watching replays where the 170 knots is utilized in unsafe; efficient and effective manner would be beneficial.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.