A321 flight crew reported having an aircraft cleared onto the runway at san as they were approaching...

Narrative:

I was the captain and pilot flying while operating to san diego (san). We were on the lindi 4 arrival for the RNAV (GPS) Y for runway 27 at san diego. While on the approach; and at approximately 5000 MSL; near lucki intersection; we noticed converging traffic to our right. Socal approach control gave us vectors to the left to put the converging traffic ahead of us for the arrival into san diego. After separation was satisfactory; we were vectored to rejoin the approach at lyndi intersection. The weather was a solid overcast at approximately 4000 MSL; and we began our descent on the RNAV approach. As we passed reebo final approach fix; san diego tower told us to slow to our final approach speed; which we did. We heard the tower clear an aircraft for takeoff on the runway we were landing. As we continued the approach; we were very surprised to hear the tower clear a second aircraft to takeoff on our landing runway. We broke out of the cloud layer at approximately 1500 MSL and we saw the aircraft taking the runway when we were inside 1000 AGL. We became concerned as to the lack of separation and we reviewed the go-around procedures. We were at approximately 100 AGL when san diego tower initiated a go-around for our aircraft; as the other aircraft was still on the runway. We accomplished the go-around and the tower gave us vectors to the left and a climb to 2500 MSL. We were switched to socal and climbed to 5000 MSL and were vectored back for another approach.it was very busy getting the approach set up and complying with ATC instructions. Socal turned us back to vydda intersection and descended us to 4000 MSL. There was confusion with the first officer talking to socal about the clearance altitude; as we were prompting socal for a lower altitude and clearance for the approach. We finally received approach clearance; but we were approximately 1000 feet high on the approach and in IMC conditions. We struggled to get the aircraft to descend and capture the glideslope on the RNAV approach. Not satisfied with what the automation was doing; I disconnected the autopilot and hand flew the remainder of the approach and tried to get the aircraft down to the appropriate glideslope. We were fully configured by 1000 AGL but will still high on the approach. We had to increase the rate of descent below 1000 AGL to approximately 1400 FPM momentarily to get down. The 'sink rate' warning did go off in the cockpit. We were on a normal glideslope at 500 AGL. I felt it was much safer to continue what would possibly be considered an unstable approach that to execute a second go-around; given the reduced level of ATC service we had experienced; along with a high workload; frustration; and reduced fuel state. The landing was uneventful. I debriefed this event over the telephone with supervisors with both san diego tower and socal approach. ATC vectored us for the approach higher than we should have been to execute a stabilized approach. ATC should not 'push tin' and try to get out aircraft without proper separation; resulting in a go-around and the subsequent vectors for the second approach putting us high and making it difficult to descend on a normal glideslope; especially in IMC conditions.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A321 flight crew reported having an aircraft cleared onto the runway at SAN as they were approaching to land. At 100 feet they were issued a go-around by ATC. On the next approach they were held high by ATC resulting in an unstabilized approach; but a successful landing.

Narrative: I was the Captain and pilot flying while operating to San Diego (SAN). We were on the LINDI 4 Arrival for the RNAV (GPS) Y for Runway 27 at San Diego. While on the approach; and at approximately 5000 MSL; near LUCKI intersection; we noticed converging traffic to our right. SoCal Approach Control gave us vectors to the left to put the converging traffic ahead of us for the arrival into San Diego. After separation was satisfactory; we were vectored to rejoin the approach at LYNDI intersection. The weather was a solid overcast at approximately 4000 MSL; and we began our descent on the RNAV approach. As we passed REEBO Final Approach Fix; San Diego Tower told us to slow to our final approach speed; which we did. We heard the tower clear an aircraft for takeoff on the runway we were landing. As we continued the approach; we were very surprised to hear the Tower clear a second aircraft to takeoff on our landing runway. We broke out of the cloud layer at approximately 1500 MSL and we saw the aircraft taking the runway when we were inside 1000 AGL. We became concerned as to the lack of separation and we reviewed the go-around procedures. We were at approximately 100 AGL when San Diego Tower initiated a go-around for our aircraft; as the other aircraft was still on the runway. We accomplished the go-around and the Tower gave us vectors to the left and a climb to 2500 MSL. We were switched to SoCal and climbed to 5000 MSL and were vectored back for another approach.It was very busy getting the approach set up and complying with ATC instructions. SoCal turned us back to VYDDA intersection and descended us to 4000 MSL. There was confusion with the FO talking to SoCal about the clearance altitude; as we were prompting SoCal for a lower altitude and clearance for the approach. We finally received approach clearance; but we were approximately 1000 feet high on the approach and in IMC conditions. We struggled to get the aircraft to descend and capture the glideslope on the RNAV approach. Not satisfied with what the automation was doing; I disconnected the autopilot and hand flew the remainder of the approach and tried to get the aircraft down to the appropriate glideslope. We were fully configured by 1000 AGL but will still high on the approach. We had to increase the rate of descent below 1000 AGL to approximately 1400 FPM momentarily to get down. The 'sink rate' warning did go off in the cockpit. We were on a normal glideslope at 500 AGL. I felt it was much safer to continue what would possibly be considered an unstable approach that to execute a second go-around; given the reduced level of ATC service we had experienced; along with a high workload; frustration; and reduced fuel state. The landing was uneventful. I debriefed this event over the telephone with supervisors with both San Diego Tower and SoCal Approach. ATC vectored us for the approach higher than we should have been to execute a stabilized approach. ATC should not 'PUSH TIN' and try to get out aircraft without proper separation; resulting in a go-around and the subsequent vectors for the second approach putting us high and making it difficult to descend on a normal glideslope; especially in IMC conditions.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1456361
Time
Date	201706
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	SAN.Airport
State Reference	CA
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A321
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Other RNAV (GPS) Y Runway 27 STAR LINDI4
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Flying Captain
Experience	Flight Crew Total 11000
Person 2
Function	First Officer Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach

A321 flight crew reported having an aircraft cleared onto the runway at san as they were approaching to land. At 100 feet they were issued a go-around by ATC. On the next approach they were held high by ATC resulting in an unstabilized approach; but a successful landing.