Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 103
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: We were vectored around the RNAV arrival. While on downwind on the arrival we were assigned 2 speed restrictions. The last one was for 190 knots. We were turned onto base. We were then turned to intercept the localizer. We maintained 190 knots until given our approach clearance which did not include a speed restriction. According to JO 7110.65W Section 7 Speed Adjustment 5-7-1c which states; 'At the time approach clearance is issued; previously issued speed adjustments must be restated if required.' AIM 4-4-12 g says;' Approach clearances supersede any prior speed adjustment assignments; and pilots are expected to make their own speed adjustments as necessary to complete the approach. However; under certain circumstances; it may be necessary for ATC to issue further speed adjustments after approach clearance is issued to maintain separation between successive arrivals. Under such circumstances; previously issued speed adjustments will be restated if that speed is to be maintained or additional speed adjustments are requested. Speed adjustments should not be assigned inside the final approach fix on final or a point 5 miles from the runway; whichever is closer to the runway.'Since we were not assigned a speed restriction with the approach clearance; we began to slow as we felt was appropriate and safe for the conditions. The Monitor controller asked us a few miles from the final approach fix 'what is your speed?' We stated that it was 145 (approximately) and slowing. He then said; 'We can't have you going that slow there. You have to keep your speed up.' The first officer; with my direction; told him we were not assigned a speed restriction with our approach clearance. There was a pause and then the controller came back and said; 'I asked the other guy and he said he assigned you 190.' We said that we were not assigned speed on approach clearance and did not read it back with a speed restriction. My concern here is that the controllers in Atlanta think that the speed restriction they give us on downwind assumes that we will maintain that speed until the final approach fix. If we missed the controller; who gave us the clearance for an approach speed restriction; stating a speed restriction; we would hope he would restate the speed restriction. We then sped back up until the final approach fix. Considering the weather conditions and shooting a PRM approach with close in traffic; it would seem that keeping speed up is counterintuitive to safety.I believe this is non-compliance by the Air traffic controller in the Atlanta ATC. The Atlanta controller need to be aware of the fact that the speed restriction needs to be restated with the approach clearance.


Second narrative: When on the RNAV arrival we were given speed of 190 knots. On base we were given a turn to intercept final and I thought we were told to maintain 5000 feet until established on the ILS course and that is what I responded with in the radio transmission back to approach. We intercepted final and were closely monitoring abeam traffic on the South runways approach. We selected FMS speed and the aircraft slowed to FMS target speed profile. Slowing through approximately 145 knots a different tower controller voice contacted us (I assumed on the monitor frequency) and asked our indicated airspeed. I told him we were at 141 knots and slowing to 136 knots final approach speed. He came back with 'Well we can't have you at that speed.' and told us to speed back up. I can't remember if he gave us a new speed or not. He then asked why we had slowed so early from 190 knots and I told him we were not given that restriction to which he responded that we were. I had not heard that and did not respond to approach with a speed restriction on the dogleg turn readback. The captain sped up to about 160 knots before we reached the Final Approach Fix. I was somewhat surprised that during PRM approaches through weather on final they expected any aircraft to fly 190 knots to the Final Approach Fix. Miscommunication with ATC. Possible assumption of compliance with routine procedures at an airport we are unfamiliar with. Clear and concise from ATC in directing the restriction and responding if the readback is not IAW his/her instruction. ATC needs to treat PRM approaches with more concern and realize these are increased risk maneuvers.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported a concern when the Controller asked them why they slowed down. The reporters noted the regulation that ATC speed assignments must be restated with an approach clearance.