Narrative:

After being changed from a runway 5L to a runway 5R localizer intercept, we wee told to maintain 210 KIAS and 8000 ft. Realizing that we were very close to the airport, I requested lower and 'airport in sight.' the controller was busy and a bit behind the situation. Controller responded that we were told to descend to 3000 ft and to call the airport in sight. I responded that we were descending to 3000 ft and already had a visual on the rdu airport. To slow to 210 KIAS I had to cut power to flight idle to attempt to maintain the requested airspeed because my gear speed is 200 K. In the descent, controller wanted to know if I had the jet a few mi in front of me in sight and I responded 'negative,' as I had not been advised of this traffic before and the jet was lost in ground visualization and near impossible to spot immediately. We were again told to maintain 210 KIAS and I responded I was unable to do so with that rate of descent, and as a result was vectored into a box pattern while approaching the 3000 ft clearance. Our rate of descent was such that our autoplt could not capture at 3000 ft and as a result went 300 ft below assignment. The controller then said for us to maintain 3000 ft as I was applying power and trying not to overstress the airframe. We climbed to regain our altitude and completed the box pattern (with vectors) and were asked if we had the airport in sight and I again responded that it had been in sight for quite a while and had said so. We were cleared for the visual and told to contact tower. Contacted tower and cleared to land. Landed uneventfully. These 'slam-dunk approachs' are used by controllers in some areas and are not conducive to some airframes and airframe limitations. Also, some pressurization system cannot respond to radical dscnts with engine power cut to flight idle while the attempt is made to rapidly lose altitude as per the controller's (ATC) request. Passenger feel very uncomfortable during such maneuvering at ATC request. I believe that prior planning by ATC would go a long way to resolve this kind of trouble, lessen the workload on the pilot and controller, and as a result, have a more safe system.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AC90 PLT COMPLAINS OF ATC HANDLING PROCS WITH DELAYED SLAM DUNK APCHS THAT WERE COMPLICATED BY ACFT DESIGN PERFORMANCE RESTRS WHILE DSNDING INTO RDU, NC.

Narrative: AFTER BEING CHANGED FROM A RWY 5L TO A RWY 5R LOC INTERCEPT, WE WEE TOLD TO MAINTAIN 210 KIAS AND 8000 FT. REALIZING THAT WE WERE VERY CLOSE TO THE ARPT, I REQUESTED LOWER AND 'ARPT IN SIGHT.' THE CTLR WAS BUSY AND A BIT BEHIND THE SIT. CTLR RESPONDED THAT WE WERE TOLD TO DSND TO 3000 FT AND TO CALL THE ARPT IN SIGHT. I RESPONDED THAT WE WERE DSNDING TO 3000 FT AND ALREADY HAD A VISUAL ON THE RDU ARPT. TO SLOW TO 210 KIAS I HAD TO CUT PWR TO FLT IDLE TO ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN THE REQUESTED AIRSPD BECAUSE MY GEAR SPD IS 200 K. IN THE DSCNT, CTLR WANTED TO KNOW IF I HAD THE JET A FEW MI IN FRONT OF ME IN SIGHT AND I RESPONDED 'NEGATIVE,' AS I HAD NOT BEEN ADVISED OF THIS TFC BEFORE AND THE JET WAS LOST IN GND VISUALIZATION AND NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO SPOT IMMEDIATELY. WE WERE AGAIN TOLD TO MAINTAIN 210 KIAS AND I RESPONDED I WAS UNABLE TO DO SO WITH THAT RATE OF DSCNT, AND AS A RESULT WAS VECTORED INTO A BOX PATTERN WHILE APCHING THE 3000 FT CLRNC. OUR RATE OF DSCNT WAS SUCH THAT OUR AUTOPLT COULD NOT CAPTURE AT 3000 FT AND AS A RESULT WENT 300 FT BELOW ASSIGNMENT. THE CTLR THEN SAID FOR US TO MAINTAIN 3000 FT AS I WAS APPLYING PWR AND TRYING NOT TO OVERSTRESS THE AIRFRAME. WE CLBED TO REGAIN OUR ALT AND COMPLETED THE BOX PATTERN (WITH VECTORS) AND WERE ASKED IF WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND I AGAIN RESPONDED THAT IT HAD BEEN IN SIGHT FOR QUITE A WHILE AND HAD SAID SO. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL AND TOLD TO CONTACT TWR. CONTACTED TWR AND CLRED TO LAND. LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. THESE 'SLAM-DUNK APCHS' ARE USED BY CTLRS IN SOME AREAS AND ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO SOME AIRFRAMES AND AIRFRAME LIMITATIONS. ALSO, SOME PRESSURIZATION SYS CANNOT RESPOND TO RADICAL DSCNTS WITH ENG PWR CUT TO FLT IDLE WHILE THE ATTEMPT IS MADE TO RAPIDLY LOSE ALT AS PER THE CTLR'S (ATC) REQUEST. PAX FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE DURING SUCH MANEUVERING AT ATC REQUEST. I BELIEVE THAT PRIOR PLANNING BY ATC WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO RESOLVE THIS KIND OF TROUBLE, LESSEN THE WORKLOAD ON THE PLT AND CTLR, AND AS A RESULT, HAVE A MORE SAFE SYS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.