Narrative:

On sep/mon/06; about XA30 pm I was executing a practice ILS approach to long beach airport in long beach; ca. The approach controller vectored my aircraft through the localizer to allow an air carrier flight to land. The approach controller then vectored my aircraft back to intercept the localizer and asked if I could increase the speed of my aircraft because he had another air carrier flight right behind me. I agreed to increase speed because I didnT want to be vectored away from the airport again. In retrospect I should not have increased speed because my aircraft is a very aerodynamically clean aircraft with low gear and flap deployment speeds. I elected to execute a go around when I was on short final because I was still at a high rate of speed. When I told the tower controller I was going around; controller was firm that I land. I responded that I was still fast and I did not wish to attempt a landing. Controller reiterated that I should land and the runway was 10000 ft long. I stated that I was not going to land and I was going to maintain runway heading to compton airport a short distance away. I was then asked to call the tower when I landed. The tower controller I spoke with said that go around's were not allowed on runway 30 due to the airport's other traffic patterns. I do not recall the controller calling traffic other than the traffic on downwind to runway 25L (if at all). I am not an inexperienced pilot and my decision to go around based upon maintaining the safety of my flight. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: pilot stated that he understood the lgb local controller's concerns; but was unsure where that policy was posted. He thought it was a locally understood policy. In this particular case he felt unsafe attempting to get the aircraft on the ground and so elected to go around.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PLT ON AN LGB RWY 30 ILS EXECUTED A GAR BECAUSE HE WAS TOO FAST TO LAND AFTER COMPLYING WITH ATC'S SPD REQUESTS. CTLR SAID NO GAR'S ALLOWED ON RWY 30.

Narrative: ON SEP/MON/06; ABOUT XA30 PM I WAS EXECUTING A PRACTICE ILS APCH TO LONG BEACH ARPT IN LONG BEACH; CA. THE APCH CTLR VECTORED MY ACFT THROUGH THE LOC TO ALLOW AN ACR FLT TO LAND. THE APCH CTLR THEN VECTORED MY ACFT BACK TO INTERCEPT THE LOC AND ASKED IF I COULD INCREASE THE SPD OF MY ACFT BECAUSE HE HAD ANOTHER ACR FLT RIGHT BEHIND ME. I AGREED TO INCREASE SPD BECAUSE I DIDNT WANT TO BE VECTORED AWAY FROM THE ARPT AGAIN. IN RETROSPECT I SHOULD NOT HAVE INCREASED SPD BECAUSE MY ACFT IS A VERY AERODYNAMICALLY CLEAN ACFT WITH LOW GEAR AND FLAP DEPLOYMENT SPDS. I ELECTED TO EXECUTE A GAR WHEN I WAS ON SHORT FINAL BECAUSE I WAS STILL AT A HIGH RATE OF SPD. WHEN I TOLD THE TWR CTLR I WAS GOING AROUND; CTLR WAS FIRM THAT I LAND. I RESPONDED THAT I WAS STILL FAST AND I DID NOT WISH TO ATTEMPT A LNDG. CTLR REITERATED THAT I SHOULD LAND AND THE RWY WAS 10000 FT LONG. I STATED THAT I WAS NOT GOING TO LAND AND I WAS GOING TO MAINTAIN RWY HDG TO COMPTON ARPT A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY. I WAS THEN ASKED TO CALL THE TWR WHEN I LANDED. THE TWR CTLR I SPOKE WITH SAID THAT GAR'S WERE NOT ALLOWED ON RWY 30 DUE TO THE ARPT'S OTHER TFC PATTERNS. I DO NOT RECALL THE CTLR CALLING TFC OTHER THAN THE TFC ON DOWNWIND TO RWY 25L (IF AT ALL). I AM NOT AN INEXPERIENCED PLT AND MY DECISION TO GO AROUND BASED UPON MAINTAINING THE SAFETY OF MY FLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: PLT STATED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE LGB LCL CTLR'S CONCERNS; BUT WAS UNSURE WHERE THAT POLICY WAS POSTED. HE THOUGHT IT WAS A LOCALLY UNDERSTOOD POLICY. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE HE FELT UNSAFE ATTEMPTING TO GET THE ACFT ON THE GND AND SO ELECTED TO GO AROUND.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.