A svmi TRACON controller twice vectored an air carrier aircraft inside of the runway 10 FAF. Because...

Narrative:

Starting descent procedure that included a DME arc to an ILS. Our pre-descent planning left room for short cuts on the procedure. Most of this pad was used up by about 8000 ft due to short cut vectoring and we were subsequently advised that we were number one for the approach. The controller unexpectedly vectored us well inside the final approach fix and significantly above the glideslope in IMC conditions. We were not going to able to establish stable approach parameter in order to complete a normal landing and instead executed a go around. We had a very difficult time communicating with the controller during this event. We made multiple requests on approach that were either not understood or ignored that would have kept us from the need for a go around. There were continued difficulties during the go around and second approach. There are some published arrival and departure procedures coupled with ATC practices that need review. For example; the ILS DME runway 10 for which we were cleared has an intercept altitude and FAF crossing of 4000 ft. There are no fixes inside this point. The controller had us on an intercept vector inside this point and below 4000 ft diving on a vector to the localizer in IMC condition to capture the glideslope from above. When we returned to a second approach we were again vectored inside the FAF for an ILS approach. We continued due to the fact we were just below the bases of the clouds at 2000 ft and could guarantee safely by visual means. The go around procedure took us to darpa intersection to hold at 4000 ft. It follows the exact routing we subsequently used on our departure flight. The departure SID also uses 4000 ft for the altitude at darpa. We were concerned about conflicts with departing aircraft on our go around but had significant difficulty communicating with ATC. The controller did not speak clearly and did not seem to be able to adequately understand our requests.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A SVMI TRACON controller twice vectored an air carrier aircraft inside of the Runway 10 FAF. Because the aircraft was kept high; the first approach resulted in a go around. On the second approach the crew compensated for poor language and controlling skill and successfully landed.

Narrative: Starting descent procedure that included a DME arc to an ILS. Our pre-descent planning left room for short cuts on the procedure. Most of this pad was used up by about 8000 FT due to short cut vectoring and we were subsequently advised that we were number one for the approach. The Controller unexpectedly vectored us well inside the final approach fix and significantly above the glideslope in IMC conditions. We were not going to able to establish stable approach parameter in order to complete a normal landing and instead executed a go around. We had a very difficult time communicating with the Controller during this event. We made multiple requests on approach that were either not understood or ignored that would have kept us from the need for a go around. There were continued difficulties during the go around and second approach. There are some published arrival and departure procedures coupled with ATC practices that need review. For example; the ILS DME Runway 10 for which we were cleared has an intercept altitude and FAF crossing of 4000 FT. There are no fixes inside this point. The Controller had us on an intercept vector inside this point and below 4000 FT diving on a vector to the localizer in IMC condition to capture the glideslope from above. When we returned to a second approach we were again vectored inside the FAF for an ILS approach. We continued due to the fact we were just below the bases of the clouds at 2000 FT and could guarantee safely by visual means. The go around procedure took us to DARPA intersection to hold at 4000 FT. It follows the exact routing we subsequently used on our departure flight. The departure SID also uses 4000 FT for the altitude at DARPA. We were concerned about conflicts with departing aircraft on our go around but had significant difficulty communicating with ATC. The Controller did not speak clearly and did not seem to be able to adequately understand our requests.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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	858872
Time
Date	200911
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	SVMI.Airport
State Reference	FO
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Flying
Person 2
Function	Pilot Not Flying First Officer
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach

A svmi TRACON controller twice vectored an air carrier aircraft inside of the runway 10 FAF. Because the aircraft was kept high; the first approach resulted in a go around. On the second approach the crew compensated for poor language and controlling skill and successfully landed.