Narrative:

I was the pilot flying on approached runway 16 in the evening; it was a normal approach initially until downwind headed north approaching zspd at about 900M at an assigned speed of 250 KTS; conditions were dark night with no moon scattered to broken cloud cover at 2;000 MSL visibility approximately 4 KM in haze. I elected unilaterally to slow to 200 KTS expecting a base turn soon; almost immediately thereafter approach control asked our speed and slowed us further to 180 KTS. The local traffic at this time was very light. Unfortunately a significant amount of pilot situational awareness is lost due to the extensive usage of chinese on the air traffic frequency. Approach turned us toward the localizer; left heading 270 and stepped us down to 600 M (base leg and normal operations at this point). This is where the problem rapidly develops. We were slowed to 160 KTS and then rapidly to minimum speed (approach had turned us in too tight and not exercised sufficient speed control to make it work - they created a situation with insufficient spacing with the traffic ahead). We were totally unaware that any traffic was ahead; we heard nothing on the radio and observed no TCAS target. We were prepared to go around if necessary. Still not processing the closure problem or distance ahead to our traffic. The next step is where safety is impacted in a very serious matter. By this point we had the runway clearly in sight and were descending on the glide slope having been cleared for the ILS 16 but not cleared to land. Position approximately 4 mile final at 1;300 MSL. I was hand flying the approach fully configured with flaps 25; my landing flap selection. The controller (approach not tower I believe) then stated; 'landing clearance canceled; turn left heading 030.' this in a nutshell is not a proper missed approach clearance turning out east over the water in solid IMC without specifying an altitude to maintain. In day VMC this would have been perfectly safe and acceptable. I leveled the plane and began a very shallow left turn. The controller later added maintain 500M; I was already slightly above this and slowly came back down. Note the MSA is 2;000 MSL to the east and I am not comfortable following chinese controllers at low altitude off of a published segment. This vector back to the ILS 16 at 500 M was uneventful. But I will never accept this again. The take away is: insist on 'maintain runway heading climb and maintain XXX' or 'fly the published missed approach; climb and maintain XXX'. This type of low level circuit broken off from an ILS has some additional undesirable complications (similar to a prm hand flown breakout) FD commands were messed up and unusable for a period of time; I turned it off until the pilot not flying got it working properly.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A ZSPD Controller turned an air carrier aircraft in too close behind traffic on a Runway 16 ILS necessitating an ATC directed go around which did not follow standard procedures or an assigned altitude.

Narrative: I was the pilot flying on approached Runway 16 in the evening; it was a normal approach initially until downwind headed north approaching ZSPD at about 900M at an assigned speed of 250 KTS; conditions were dark night with no moon scattered to broken cloud cover at 2;000 MSL visibility approximately 4 KM in haze. I elected unilaterally to slow to 200 KTS expecting a base turn soon; almost immediately thereafter Approach Control asked our speed and slowed us further to 180 KTS. The local traffic at this time was very light. Unfortunately a significant amount of pilot situational awareness is lost due to the extensive usage of Chinese on the air traffic frequency. Approach turned us toward the localizer; left heading 270 and stepped us down to 600 M (base leg and normal operations at this point). This is where the problem rapidly develops. We were slowed to 160 KTS and then rapidly to MINIMUM speed (Approach had turned us in too tight and not exercised sufficient speed control to make it work - they created a situation with insufficient spacing with the traffic AHEAD). We were totally UNAWARE that any traffic was ahead; we heard nothing on the radio and observed NO TCAS target. We were prepared to go around if necessary. Still not processing the closure problem or distance ahead to our traffic. The NEXT step is where SAFETY is IMPACTED in a very serious matter. By this point we had the runway clearly in sight and were descending on the glide slope having been cleared for the ILS 16 but NOT cleared to land. Position approximately 4 mile final at 1;300 MSL. I was hand flying the approach fully configured with flaps 25; my landing flap selection. The Controller (Approach not Tower I believe) then stated; 'Landing clearance canceled; turn left heading 030.' This in a nutshell IS NOT a proper MISSED APPROACH clearance turning out east over the water in solid IMC without specifying an ALTITUDE to MAINTAIN. In day VMC this would have been perfectly SAFE and acceptable. I leveled the plane and began a very shallow left turn. The Controller later added maintain 500M; I was already slightly above this and slowly came back down. NOTE the MSA is 2;000 MSL to the east and I am NOT comfortable following Chinese Controllers at low altitude off of a published segment. This vector back to the ILS 16 at 500 M was uneventful. BUT I WILL NEVER accept this AGAIN. The take away is: INSIST on 'MAINTAIN runway heading climb and maintain XXX' or 'FLY THE PUBLISHED MISSED APPROACH; climb and maintain XXX'. This type of LOW LEVEL circuit broken off from an ILS has some additional undesirable complications (similar to a PRM hand flown breakout) FD commands were messed up and unusable for a period of time; I turned it off until the pilot not flying got it working properly.

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.