Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 150; Flight Crew Total 12000; Flight Crew Type 3300
Communication Breakdown; Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Workload; Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
On the FLIPR TWO arrival; crossing FLIPR at 12;000 FT MSL (landing east); we reported onto Approach Control with the ATIS information. Prior to sunrise; still night time; the sky was clear and the visibility was unrestricted. Flight was being radar vectored for an ILS approach to Runway 09. Then; we were given a descent clearance from 6;000 FT MSL to 3;000 FT MSL. Controller instructed us to turn to heading 320. Even though he didn't say it that is a direct track to GRITT; the IAF for ILS Runway 09; the event began approximately at 3;000 FT MSL when the Controller asked if we had 'the field in sight.' I; as the pilot flying; was 'expecting' vectors for ILS 09 not a 'tricky' way to drive me to a VISUAL APPROACH that I had not requested. The Controller did NOT 'offer' us visual; he only asked if 'we had the field in sight' after he had instructed us onto heading 300 and to descend to 1;500 FT MSL. At the beginning we said '...NEGATIVE YET...' and he re-emphasized asking again seconds later of giving us the 'position of the airport' twice. The last call was '...Air Carrier 1234 heavy the airport is now three o'clock about five miles.' He again and again continued leading us toward a VISUAL. After we said 'YES;' we were approved to something that we had not asked. I understand I shouldn't be complaining because it was finally us who accepted; but the fact is during the whole approach he was 'lobbying' for the VISUAL approach. This is not the first time; nor an isolated event; where MIAMI ATC vectors an aircraft into MIA on a heading to the base leg to final approach course; at 230 KTS; it's been going on for the past 20 years. This procedure places the aircraft at the outer marker in its limits for descent and slowdown in the remaining distance to touchdown. I know it was not uncommon to 'slam-dunk' that challenged the crew clearance to get stabilized in speed; before glideslope descent rate and landing; but in this opportunity; the Controller goes to a real limit. We were in a 250 KTS descend and trying to decelerating to reach the flaps speed. Using the speed brakes and landing gear we reached a stabilized approach at 1;000 FT for company policy. The visual approach and landing were uneventful. Lesson learned: until we have the 'Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA)' on all airports around the world and my company sends a request to ATC '...not to 'slam-dunk' our airplanes in MIA please;' we will continue testing with the 'magic phrases' like 'unable visual' or 'going around' if we are not stabilized. Even though there were no signals of an unstabilized approach; it would have been beneficial to ask the pilot if he/she could accept a visual approach. A long duty night with an early arrival (night) should always raise the red flags.
An Air Carrier Captain complained that MIA TRACON set his aircraft up for a night visual approach and almost insisted that they accept a visual approach when his preference; after an all night flight; was to fly a published approach.