B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Company Policy; Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
We were on the visual approach to 18L in MCO. We were cleared to descend to 2;500 FT. We were slowing to configure for landing while descending. ATC told us again to descend to 2;500 FT and pointed out traffic ahead. I explained that we had to slow while descending to ATC. I had a visual on the Cessna traffic to our right; and also a twin that appeared to be climbing directly ahead I told the Captain to turn right and climb shortly after that; TCAS commanded a climb.The main cause of this was poor communication between flight crew and ATC. I do not believe any other company operates its fleet like our airline; requiring us to slow to within 10 KTS of clean maneuver or minimum flap speed before selecting our next flap position. I say this because when we are away from airports that handle lots of our flights ATC seems perplexed by our need to slow so much to configure. Also this causes a greatly reduced descent rate that ATC does not anticipate.
When cleared for a visual approach to Runway 18L at MCO; a B737NG experienced traffic conflicts and a TCAS RA with respect to traffic ahead of them. The reporter cited a company policy requiring crews to slow within 10K of minimum KIAS for the existing flap setting before extending greater deflection. He believes this policy results in the company's aircraft following significantly different vertical descent tracks from those of most carriers which do not utilize the same vertical planning regimen.