Narrative:

We were being vectored by norcal approach for the ILS 12 at oak. We had intercepted the localizer and we were flying at flaps 5 maneuvering speed. Approach control requested that we maintain 170 knots to the FAF. We increased our speed as requested. When we contacted oak tower; they asked us to slow to our final approach speed; and we complied. What we didn't know was that tower was trying to squeeze in a departure between us and the arriving company aircraft ahead of us. We were never cleared to land; just to 'continue.'because of the rain; all of us had to use autobrakes. This resulted in aircraft slowing way before the high speed exit at W-3. Tower had another company flight to line up and wait; while waiting for the landing aircraft to clear the runway. When he finally did; tower cleared the other aircraft for takeoff. We were well below 500 feet at this point. Tower then instructed us to go around and gave us a heading of 270 (as I best recall) and cleared us to 1;500 feet. It was a busy cockpit with this low level off altitude. We contacted departure and almost immediately; the controller wanted to know why we had to go around; while we are still cleaning up the airplane. Then I told the controller that we were diverting to ZZZ. This was because we had reached the alternate fuel limit. In fact; we had discussed this while being vectored and agreed that at 7;500 pounds fuel; we would divert to ZZZ. We were at 7;500 pounds when we started the go-around.we diverted because I knew we had low ceilings and low visibility; and I didn't want to take a chance on another missed approach; which would make our fuel situation critical.first [issue]; the tower squeezing the departing aircraft on to the runway. When we are operating in IFR conditions; we can't be trying to squeeze airplanes in between arrivals. It was obvious that landing aircraft were slow to reach the W-3 high speed turnoff. Second; better coordination between approach and tower. Third; and very important. Given the heading changes and changing altitudes on the go-around; can the controller wait until we are at 3;000 feet or above before peppering me with questions about why we performed a go-around. It's an additive condition that we just didn't need at that busy time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Captain reported diverting to an alternate after executing a go-around at OAK; citing ATC procedures as contributing.

Narrative: We were being vectored by NorCal Approach for the ILS 12 at OAK. We had intercepted the Localizer and we were flying at flaps 5 maneuvering speed. Approach Control requested that we maintain 170 knots to the FAF. We increased our speed as requested. When we contacted OAK Tower; they asked us to slow to our final approach speed; and we complied. What we didn't know was that Tower was trying to squeeze in a departure between us and the arriving Company aircraft ahead of us. We were never cleared to land; just to 'continue.'Because of the rain; all of us had to use autobrakes. This resulted in aircraft slowing way before the high speed exit at W-3. Tower had another Company flight to line up and wait; while waiting for the landing aircraft to clear the runway. When he finally did; Tower cleared the other aircraft for takeoff. We were well below 500 feet at this point. Tower then instructed us to go around and gave us a heading of 270 (as I best recall) and cleared us to 1;500 feet. It was a busy cockpit with this low level off altitude. We contacted Departure and almost immediately; the Controller wanted to know why we had to go around; while we are still cleaning up the airplane. Then I told the Controller that we were diverting to ZZZ. This was because we had reached the alternate fuel limit. In fact; we had discussed this while being vectored and agreed that at 7;500 pounds fuel; we would divert to ZZZ. We were at 7;500 pounds when we started the go-around.We diverted because I knew we had low ceilings and low visibility; and I didn't want to take a chance on another missed approach; which would make our fuel situation critical.First [issue]; the Tower squeezing the departing aircraft on to the runway. When we are operating in IFR conditions; we can't be trying to squeeze airplanes in between arrivals. It was obvious that landing aircraft were slow to reach the W-3 high speed turnoff. Second; better coordination between Approach and Tower. Third; and very important. Given the heading changes and changing altitudes on the go-around; can the Controller wait until we are at 3;000 feet or above before peppering me with questions about why we performed a go-around. It's an additive condition that we just didn't need at that busy time.

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.