Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 340; Flight Crew Type 13000
Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Airport; Procedure; Weather
Though a violation didn't really occur; I'm filing this report more as a general safety concern since it happened to us twice on the same night; and has happened to me twice before in the past. I realize SAN Runway 27 remains a 'problem' approach for lots of operators. The weather in SAN was reported as BKN014 with good visibility; but a visual approach was not doable due to the position of the cloud layer and being almost overcast. We had requested and were told to expect the RNAV Z 27 into SAN via radar vectors from a right downwind. We hoped for the KLOMN transition; but ATC was very busy with traffic and would not give us the KLOMN transition. Our vectored base leg was about perpendicular to OKAIN; with a descent given to 4000. Our issued turn to final was; 'Turn right heading 240 to join the RNAV final; maintain 4000 until established; 170 knots to REEBO; cleared RNAV Z 27.' With heading select to 240 at 30 degree bank; I noticed we would join final just inside SAYAE; so I made CIJHI the active waypoint and engaged LNAV when we rolled out on the 240 heading. We configured to landing gear down and flaps 15 prior to intercept since we already knew we were high. Unfortunately; since we were told to maintain 4000 until established; I couldn't begin a descent from 4000 until the autopilot began its turn to final; which occurred about a mile outside of CIJHI. Despite using level change to expedite to 2700 (for CIJHI) and then 2000 (for REEBO); we were unable to get the vertical NPS scale to show anything other than full scale high by REEBO. I did not try to engage VNAV on this approach attempt; since I did not expect to get VNAV PATH with us being so high. At REEBO; with our altitude about 2400; we initiated a go-around. Vectors for the subsequent approach were very; very similar. I was able to get to 2000 about 0.7 miles outside of REEBO by using a bigger intercept than issued (220 vs. the assigned 240 heading; thereby making the final slightly longer) and by slowing to 165 earlier than instructed to get the flaps to 25 prior to turning final. ATC also gave us 3800 ft until established on final; which helped as well. I still had to use Level Change and abrupt manual thrust reductions to get the aircraft at the proper altitude to get into VNAV PATH by REEBO to legally continue the approach. It's kind of sad I had to modify ATC's instructions to get the approach to barely work.Similar circumstances have happened to me less than a year ago; and surely ATC could mitigate some of the factors involved in setting us up for an unstable or missed approach. Utilizing the RNAV Y 27 or LOC 27 approaches wouldn't make a difference here; since they all cross REEBO at the same altitude and our procedures (including the vertical speed method) necessitate us crossing the FAF on or very close to the published crossing altitude. I realize terrain is a factor; too; but even getting us to join final at 4000 over OKAIN; just two miles farther out; should be enough to get this approach to work. Or; letting us slow to final approach speed on base would allow us to fully configure and use MCP level automation to get the aircraft to the final intercept altitude once established inbound. Of course; the best solution would be clearing us for the KLOMN transition; but I guess ATC still isn't ready for that yet with traffic arriving on the straight in. By controlling our speed on this transition they should be able to sequence us in with LYNDI arrivals. It's tempting to begin a descent earlier than established on final. I started our descent just as the autopilot began rolling into the turn; but this obviously could have been dangerous; too. ATC's vectoring would have worked in the 'good old days' (or maybe bad old days) of diving and driving to the MDA; or during visual approaches; but safety would be much better if ATC could set us up to actually use our VNAV for vertical guidance in IMC.
Air carrier Captain reported executing a go-around after a SCT Controller restricted his aircraft to 4;000 ft until intercepting final outside CIJHI on the SAN RNAV Z 27. The second approach was similar; but the aircraft was slowed and turned final outside REEBO followed by a successful approach.