Narrative:

Approach control advised us to expect vectors to runway 19R. The light traffic in the area made runway 25L a better choice but we complied and accepted vectors to runway 19R. Approach control gave us multiple assigned speeds to maintain; and kept us high at 7000' MSL. I could see approach control was going to give me an 'energy management' problem to deal with (I was the pilot flying); that is too much altitude and too much airspeed to dissipate by 1000' AGL; our stabilized approach criteria. I slowed as much as they would allow 170 knots. They cleared us the visual approach at this time; still from an altitude of 7000' MSL; advising us to turn immediately. Seeing this tight situation coming; I configured the aircraft to 40 degrees flaps; gear down; at 140 knots for maximum controlled descent and turned base turn. Even with this configuration (maximum drag) I could tell being stabilized would be tight. Then approach control intervened in my desired ground track for my cleared visual approach instructing us to intercept runway 19R final using a 250 degree heading. The effect of this would be to decrease my ground track even more; making it certain I could not be stabilized by 1000' AGL. I had the first officer advise ATC that we needed maneuvering room such westward to say inside the stratosphere. This was denied and then he broke us out; climbed us to 5200'. We accomplished go-around procedures and complied. What transpired after that was also perplexing: we flew an extended box pattern away from runway 19S which made us 20 minutes late. I questioned the controller as to the intent and effect of this whole incident advising him that the vectors given placed us in an unsafe condition and given the required ground track a go-around was our only option.I feel the service from approach control could have been improved by the following: 1) give crews reasoning for unusual vectors; allow them to call out and sequence behind other arriving aircraft using visual approach procedure. This reduces controller workload and allows crews to properly; safely manage aircraft energy levels.2) keeping aircraft high at 7000 MSL that close to the field and then requiring a tight base turn that is further restrained by assigned vectors leads to unsafe conditions for the crews. The only option is a go- around.3) if aircraft must be kept high; advise crews as to the reason and allow them to manage their own speed. The speed assignment was contributory to this problem. This incident also ruined our perfect ontime schedule for the day and was entirely preventable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An air carrier pilot requested that ATC modify the approach clearance to enable a stabilized approach. Instead; ATC turned the aircraft off the approach for an extended vector. The reporting pilot stated suggestions for improved ATC service.

Narrative: Approach Control advised us to expect vectors to Runway 19R. The light traffic in the area made Runway 25L a better choice but we complied and accepted vectors to Runway 19R. Approach Control gave us multiple assigned speeds to maintain; and kept us high at 7000' MSL. I could see Approach Control was going to give me an 'energy management' problem to deal with (I was the Pilot Flying); that is too much altitude and too much airspeed to dissipate by 1000' AGL; our stabilized approach criteria. I slowed as much as they would allow 170 knots. They cleared us the visual approach at this time; still from an altitude of 7000' MSL; advising us to turn immediately. Seeing this tight situation coming; I configured the aircraft to 40 degrees flaps; gear down; at 140 knots for maximum controlled descent and turned base turn. Even with this configuration (maximum drag) I could tell being stabilized would be tight. Then Approach Control intervened in my desired ground track for my cleared visual approach instructing us to intercept Runway 19R final using a 250 degree heading. The effect of this would be to decrease my ground track even more; making it certain I could not be stabilized by 1000' AGL. I had the F/O advise ATC that we needed maneuvering room such westward to say inside the Stratosphere. This was denied and then he broke us out; climbed us to 5200'. We accomplished go-around procedures and complied. What transpired after that was also perplexing: we flew an extended box pattern away from Runway 19S which made us 20 minutes late. I questioned the Controller as to the intent and effect of this whole incident advising him that the vectors given placed us in an unsafe condition and given the required ground track a go-around was our only option.I feel the service from Approach Control could have been improved by the following: 1) Give Crews reasoning for unusual vectors; allow them to call out and sequence behind other arriving aircraft using visual approach procedure. This reduces Controller workload and allows Crews to properly; safely manage aircraft energy levels.2) Keeping aircraft high at 7000 MSL that close to the field and THEN requiring a tight base turn that is further restrained by assigned vectors leads to unsafe conditions for the Crews. The only option is a go- around.3) If aircraft must be kept high; advise Crews as to the reason and allow them to manage their own speed. The speed assignment was contributory to this problem. This incident also ruined our perfect ontime schedule for the day and was entirely preventable.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.