Narrative:

After being cleared for the localizer approach, and established on the localizer approach to runway 27 at san, we were subsequently told to climb to 5000 ft on a 270 degree heading and our approach clearance was canceled, because of faster traffic behind us (yes, that's right!). We had flown the baret STAR into san, and had been instructed to 'keep our speed up,' which we did. After passing baret intersection, we were assigned a vector heading for vectors to the localizer, runway 27 approach to san and issued a speed reduction to 220 KIAS. We were then issued a vector to intercept the localizer and 'cleared for the approach.' we were subsequently instructed to maintain 180 KTS until a 5 mi final, which we declined to concur with, because the final approach segment has a GS angle of 3.5 degrees. As a result, it is necessary to be configured 'on profile' at final approach speed, so as to be able to fly a stabilized approach, on-speed, safely, when intercepting the glide path angle, which occurs at or near the swatt intersection. Any speed assignments by ATC, once an approach clearance is issued, is dependent on pilot concurrence. The socal controller, however, attempted to intimidate us into flying a faster, unstabilized approach by threatening us with pulling us out of the approach sequence. He made good on his threat, shortly thereafter, and canceled our approach clearance, vectoring us around for another approach, and turning us over swatt intersection at 5000 ft MSL, putting us on a 4 degree GS for the runway. When I requested an explanation for the ATC initiated missed approach, I was told that there was faster traffic behind me! Usually, the slower aircraft ahead has the right-of-way! His explanation for a turn over swatt at 5000 ft MSL, on the second approach, was 'to keep us in class B airspace.' I understand class B airspace needs, but not turning us back in too high to establish a stabilized safe approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B752 CONCERNED WITH APPARENT PENALTY VECTORING BY SCT DUE TO A FASTER APCH SPD ASSIGNED, BUT NOT ACCEPTED.

Narrative: AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE LOC APCH, AND ESTABLISHED ON THE LOC APCH TO RWY 27 AT SAN, WE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY TOLD TO CLB TO 5000 FT ON A 270 DEG HDG AND OUR APCH CLRNC WAS CANCELED, BECAUSE OF FASTER TFC BEHIND US (YES, THAT'S RIGHT!). WE HAD FLOWN THE BARET STAR INTO SAN, AND HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO 'KEEP OUR SPD UP,' WHICH WE DID. AFTER PASSING BARET INTXN, WE WERE ASSIGNED A VECTOR HDG FOR VECTORS TO THE LOC, RWY 27 APCH TO SAN AND ISSUED A SPD REDUCTION TO 220 KIAS. WE WERE THEN ISSUED A VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE LOC AND 'CLRED FOR THE APCH.' WE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY INSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN 180 KTS UNTIL A 5 MI FINAL, WHICH WE DECLINED TO CONCUR WITH, BECAUSE THE FINAL APCH SEGMENT HAS A GS ANGLE OF 3.5 DEGS. AS A RESULT, IT IS NECESSARY TO BE CONFIGURED 'ON PROFILE' AT FINAL APCH SPD, SO AS TO BE ABLE TO FLY A STABILIZED APCH, ON-SPD, SAFELY, WHEN INTERCEPTING THE GLIDE PATH ANGLE, WHICH OCCURS AT OR NEAR THE SWATT INTXN. ANY SPD ASSIGNMENTS BY ATC, ONCE AN APCH CLRNC IS ISSUED, IS DEPENDENT ON PLT CONCURRENCE. THE SOCAL CTLR, HOWEVER, ATTEMPTED TO INTIMIDATE US INTO FLYING A FASTER, UNSTABILIZED APCH BY THREATENING US WITH PULLING US OUT OF THE APCH SEQUENCE. HE MADE GOOD ON HIS THREAT, SHORTLY THEREAFTER, AND CANCELED OUR APCH CLRNC, VECTORING US AROUND FOR ANOTHER APCH, AND TURNING US OVER SWATT INTXN AT 5000 FT MSL, PUTTING US ON A 4 DEG GS FOR THE RWY. WHEN I REQUESTED AN EXPLANATION FOR THE ATC INITIATED MISSED APCH, I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS FASTER TFC BEHIND ME! USUALLY, THE SLOWER ACFT AHEAD HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY! HIS EXPLANATION FOR A TURN OVER SWATT AT 5000 FT MSL, ON THE SECOND APCH, WAS 'TO KEEP US IN CLASS B AIRSPACE.' I UNDERSTAND CLASS B AIRSPACE NEEDS, BUT NOT TURNING US BACK IN TOO HIGH TO ESTABLISH A STABILIZED SAFE APCH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.