EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Upon checking in with SoCal we were told that if we had the Coliseum and the runway in sight; that we could be given a short vector to 24R. It was VFR conditions and we had both in sight; so we responded that we can accept a short vector. We were given a slam dunk style descent to 2500 feet in anticipation for the upcoming turn. Speed was 210 as per the arrival and we began expediting down to 2500. Our instructions were to turn base abeam the Coliseum. Upon reaching we began our right base turn and promptly began slowing down the aircraft. Altitude was on profile for the short approach. Upon wings level on our base leg heading; SoCal asked us if we had our company E175 in sight 12 o'clock also landing Runway 24R. We identified our company aircraft and were told to maintain visual separation and slow down to 160. We were then cleared for the visual approach and told to contact Tower. We began configuring as quickly as we could but thought it was a bit odd that we were given such little separation from the preceding aircraft. Once we turned onto our final course; we immediately caught the wake of the aircraft and consequently had some messages pop up on the EICAS. (AT Fail; Windshear Fail; AOA limit Fail). We were at approximately 1400-1500 FT AGL at this point. I saw the EICAS messages and our proximity to the landing company traffic and called a go around. I informed LA Tower of the same to which they responded with a heading and altitude; saying 'it wouldn't have worked anyway'; as we only had 2 miles separation from the landing traffic. I read back the instructions and informed the controller that we had been given a short vector by SoCal Approach. Upon our vectoring to come back; I looked up the QRH for all the EICAS messages and they all were simply 'Crew Awareness Messages'. We began setting up for another approach to 24R. We got vectored back in and landed without any further incident. Once on the ground; all the messages were replaced with a Probe 1; 3 fail which cleared with Maintenance action at the gate. We were told by Maintenance that this was due to the wake turbulence we experienced. We believe that SoCal vectored us in for the approach far too close to landing traffic. Once they had us identify the preceding traffic; they simply cleared us for the visual approach and told us to maintain our own separation. However there wasn't much we could do to separate ourselves that close to the runway and the other airplane. We discussed this incident in detail and decided that either SoCal should have called our base turn accordingly or told us about the traffic earlier on so that we could have slowed down earlier and planned our base turn accordingly. Once we were released to Tower; we pretty much had no choice but to go around.
It is the opinion of the flight crew upon debriefing that SoCal approach should have alerted us to the company traffic inbound either prior to issuing the approach clearance so that the flight crew could ensure spacing; or by vectoring us to ensure spacing between the preceding aircraft.
EMB-175 flight crew reported executing a go-around on a visual approach to LAX after encountering wake turbulence from the preceding EMB-175 that was only two miles ahead.