Narrative:

Arriving brussels international airport on arrival routing, center control had issued us a clearance directly to an IAF on the arrival and a speed restr to 'keep the speed up for now.' during the descent, we were passing through 10000 ft and leveled off to slow the speed to 250 KTS. At approximately this same time, we were passing the IAF, at which point the noise abatement procedures had us slow to 220 KTS, so we continued the speed reduction to 220 KTS. At 10000 ft and slowing to 250 KTS, the approach controller asked us our speed, at which we replied slowing to 250 KTS. Following that, we continued the reduction to 220 KTS as per the noise abatement procedure. There was nothing done incorrectly but this made me think about the clrncs we received and that they were somewhat vague in nature. When the previous controller issued us 'keep the speed up for now,' we perhaps should have queried what specific speed, because it seemed as though the approach controller was unaware and I don't recall if we told him when we checked on. We had been given a direct routing so we did not fly over the speed limit point but when abeam it, we perhaps should have queried if they wanted us to slow then or not. This incident made me think about the importance of passing on speed restrs to the next controller and asking what speed they need us to fly if in doubt.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 QUESTIONED FOREIGN AIRSPACE SPD INSTRUCTIONS DURING DSCNT. THEY AUTOMATICALLY SLOWED AS THEY THOUGHT WAS REQUIRED WITHOUT ADVISING APCH CTLR.

Narrative: ARRIVING BRUSSELS INTL ARPT ON ARR ROUTING, CTR CTL HAD ISSUED US A CLRNC DIRECTLY TO AN IAF ON THE ARR AND A SPD RESTR TO 'KEEP THE SPD UP FOR NOW.' DURING THE DSCNT, WE WERE PASSING THROUGH 10000 FT AND LEVELED OFF TO SLOW THE SPD TO 250 KTS. AT APPROX THIS SAME TIME, WE WERE PASSING THE IAF, AT WHICH POINT THE NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS HAD US SLOW TO 220 KTS, SO WE CONTINUED THE SPD REDUCTION TO 220 KTS. AT 10000 FT AND SLOWING TO 250 KTS, THE APCH CTLR ASKED US OUR SPD, AT WHICH WE REPLIED SLOWING TO 250 KTS. FOLLOWING THAT, WE CONTINUED THE REDUCTION TO 220 KTS AS PER THE NOISE ABATEMENT PROC. THERE WAS NOTHING DONE INCORRECTLY BUT THIS MADE ME THINK ABOUT THE CLRNCS WE RECEIVED AND THAT THEY WERE SOMEWHAT VAGUE IN NATURE. WHEN THE PREVIOUS CTLR ISSUED US 'KEEP THE SPD UP FOR NOW,' WE PERHAPS SHOULD HAVE QUERIED WHAT SPECIFIC SPD, BECAUSE IT SEEMED AS THOUGH THE APCH CTLR WAS UNAWARE AND I DON'T RECALL IF WE TOLD HIM WHEN WE CHKED ON. WE HAD BEEN GIVEN A DIRECT ROUTING SO WE DID NOT FLY OVER THE SPD LIMIT POINT BUT WHEN ABEAM IT, WE PERHAPS SHOULD HAVE QUERIED IF THEY WANTED US TO SLOW THEN OR NOT. THIS INCIDENT MADE ME THINK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PASSING ON SPD RESTRS TO THE NEXT CTLR AND ASKING WHAT SPD THEY NEED US TO FLY IF IN DOUBT.

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.