180 KIAS to 6NM
 

Hi,

My base airport has recently started issuing this instruction on final. Whilst this is possible on our type with a reasonable headwind it’s trickier in light winds with at higher landing weights. On one occasion, the controller queried that we were maintaining the speed after I reduced the command speed on the MCP (our indicated airspeed had not changed).

As I see it, this is used to tighten up gaps in the landing sequence that are the result of wider vectors/poor speed control. As pilots, we can refuse any such speed instruction but it can be an invidious position to be in.

180 to 6NM shouldn't be an issue (not in any commercial jet I've flown). If the aircraft is not doing what you want it to do, create drag (higher flaps or gear down). Shouldn't be an issue, especially at higher landing weights.

The tricky part might be 160 to 4NM (with very light weights which require a large speed reduction to final speed). But normally you can solve this with the same solution: continue to configure but maintain the higher speed. The already present drag will instantly reduce the speed of the aircraft from 4NM.

Unpopular opinion: controllers that issue constant and restrictive speed instructions should achieve perfect spacing. If you don't achieve perfect spacing while using intensive speed control then you're just causing unnecessary pilot workload for no reason.

Same as above. Our stabilised approach criteria says we must be configured with landing checklist complete by 1000ft, speed can be high but must be trending back and be stable by 500ft.

I would arrive at 6DME with gear down flap 20 and 4DME fully configured with the landing checklist complete but still doing 160 kts. Then at 4DME (or about 1200ft) I'd set the final approach speed. 700ft is enough to get within 10 kts of the bug.

180 until 6 and 160 until 4 is quite common i have found. If you are heavy or feel like you wont make it you can always say unable etc, or just start reducing +1nm

At 180 knots at 6 NM, I consider that very normal. On almost every flight without any specific restrictions, I usually do about that.

At 6 NM, the height above ground is approximately 1,960 feet .Maintain 180 knots to 6 NM at around 1,900–2,000 feet, then call for gear down followed by landing flaps. It’s easy to be stabilized by 1,000 feet.

For aircraft with low drag that do not decelerate easily, you can call for gear or flaps a bit earlier while maintaining 180 knots, then reduce the speed when reaching 6 NM.For the Boeing 777, since it has relatively large landing gear and produces significant drag, even if you select gear down at 5 NM or about 1600 feet ,it can still be stabilized by 1,000 feet.

And?

Whether you will incite anger or resentment in others is not at issue - you are the one flying the airplane, not ATC. If you determine that you are unable to meet your company stabilized approach criteria with the instructions given to you by ATC, say "unable" and then tell them what you can do. While I agree with everyone above that we have tools in the toolbox that we can use to better manage the situation, most of which I use myself, "unable" is another useful tool if your ability or comfort level is not up to the instruction, or if it truly is an unreasonable request for the approach being flown.

If you listen to any of the YouTube conversations between pilots and controllers where there is conflict following an instruction, there is often a lot of blithering and blathering from the pilot about company procedures, that they're flying a big, heavy airplane, or how it's only ever at xyz airport that this happens. Very few times do you hear "unable, max (min) allowable speed is xxx knots." That ends the argument, even if it means you have to be resequenced. That why no one posts the conversations where the pilots and controllers are working together - they don't get the likes and subscribers.

The airport and airline have already agreed this is achievable, it shouldn’t be a pilot/controller conversation, have a word with your ops and tell them it’s impossible in your aircraft type.
This should not be a conversation on the RT.

Wind is irrelevant on indicated airspeed.

Rate of descent on the glideslope is proportional to ground speed, affecting your ability to slow down while going down.

I agree if the airport SOP is unsafe or undoable, BUT I wholeheartedly disagree if on one occasion you are light or the tailwind makes it too challenging - ALWAYS tell approach "unable" with as much advanced notice as possible, then they can make allowance for you and stop the poor schmuck behind you from having to go around. Don't just disregard the speed INSTRUCTION and hope nobody notices. Similarly if you know you're (unusually) practically going to stop inside 4nm -ATC don't know that you're empty or using full-flap today.

Absolutely agree you with you, but if one airline, home based, single fleet constantly says unable then it rather spoils it for everyone.
And they’d always be number 2 so they wouldn’t mess it up for the next guy 😉

Then there is the 180 to 5 vs the 160 to 5 - .

Newton's first law makes this requirement impossible to achieve.

It very much depends on your airlines' stabilised approach criteria. 4 miles is approximately 1200 feet. If you have to be on-speed by 1000 then it can get tight if you're very light. If you need to have speed set and reducing passing 1000 then it's quite easy.

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind. In your logic you would end up in outer space the moment you started your engines.

So you are telling me that at 6nm you can instantly bring the speed back from 180 knots to 160 knots and fly between 6 and 4 at 160? 180 to 6 will achieve the same thing.

That would be 160 at 6 wouldn't it? Speed changes don't have to be instantaneous, the requirement is generally interpreted to mean be at 180kts at 6, then slow down to be at 160 by 4 (about 40 seconds later)