Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 3.9
Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure
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.
Working finals position this morning with the new management mandate to issue 170 knots to every aircraft on final prior to switching to the tower; no exceptions. This caused a significant increase to my workload with additional time needed to hang on to aircraft in order to comply with the restriction; and additional phraseology. The wind for aircraft on the downwind at 11;000 feet was 250 degrees at 40 knots. This caused between 120-150 knot ground track difference between aircraft on the downwind and aircraft on the final; making timing particularly challenging.Having to hold aircraft longer in order to issue speed is affecting timing; increasing spacing and adding to frequency congestion. It also gives the tower less time to do what they need to with the aircraft; like issue safety alerts for wind shear if necessary.An aircraft was number one; I hung on to the aircraft until two miles outside the Final Approach Fix in order to keep his speed up. The second aircraft I chose not to slow because I had a rapid overtake with the aircraft behind while I was figuring out the winds to adjust my spacing on final. Another aircraft I had to hold on to until two miles outside the Final Approach Fix for spacing while I established my final.At this point; the next five aircraft were issued 170 knots; which I would have done normally to hold spacing on final. However; this had to be done sooner than normal to comply with the new restriction; resulting in 4 to 4 1/2 mile final on a 2 1/2 mile runway. At this point there was no way to get the spacing back because I had to issue the speeds early in order to have time to turn aircraft in appropriately.There was extra frequency congestion about winds and turbulence. One aircraft reported he needed to fly a 210 heading to track a 200 which I approved because he was three miles to the FAF and I had no time to do anything else. 210 heading for the runway does not comply with assigned 30 degree or less final approach course intercept requirement. I used the heading tool to verify that he was tracking 200 and he was. The next two aircraft I would've let fly in at normal speed and restricted to comply. The next aircraft I held on to until 2 miles outside the FAF to close a gap. The next two aircraft I would've restricted normally to maintain spacing. By my count; this new mandate negatively impacted 11 of the 15 aircraft I worked.Remove the mandate of 170 knots or provide some exceptions for the situations like I described. Provide an opportunity for proficiency training to get used to this new technique. Management has told us this mandate is an attempt to correct a specific group of controllers who lack the proficiency to assign proper speed control on final. I have been regularly commended for my performance on final and not been told that I issue improper speeds.
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.