Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight was mishandled by Approach Control prior to being handed off to Tower. I was the Captain; Pilot Flying. Approach Control had us keep our speed at 250 knots while 5 miles in trail of aircraft ahead of us. I made comment to pilot monitoring our need to slow. At that same time approach handed us over to tower. Tower told us promptly to slow. While in the process (within approximately 10 seconds) Tower had us go around; maintain localizer heading and maintain 2;000 feet.We executed the go around; our altitude was already close to 2;000 feet. The localizer; as anticipated became erratic with our close proximity (overhead the runway); while maintaining heading I requested pilot monitoring for a heading from tower. I heard; 'turn right 070 and started to turn.' The pilot monitoring immediately intervened with 'no; turn left.' I turned immediately left to seek localizer and had pilot monitoring to confirm 'left.' He confirmed left and we proceeded with a hand off to Approach Control; maintained left traffic; confirmed traffic in sight on final with a heading to intercept final for landing.While on final; I requested phone number of ATC. After landing and taxiing to a stop we copied the number from ground control for Approach Control After gate arrival; I called this number. I informed approach that the aircraft cannot slow with a 100 knot speed differential when trailing an aircraft 5 miles. The approach controller (who did not identify himself) said they had given us a speed that we must not have heard - And I quote: 'but we're at fault too; for not getting a response to that speed.' I informed him; 'that speed reduction call never happened.' He ended by stating; 'I'm sorry we didn't get a confirmation.' I left it at that.That will not EVER happen again. Any such events as this event will never get a phone call request from this pilot. I will respond to all such events (as such) with an immediate response.This report is in response to Tower/TRACON now suggesting pilot deviation. This flight crew worked professionally and procedurally during this entire flight; subsequent flights as well as the go around followed by the subsequent approach. As stated above; our response was immediate. It was immediate enough to bring into question towers submission of a pilot deviation.Also stated above; as soon as I started a turn to the right; the pilot monitoring's response was immediate. My response to the pilot monitoring was a swift turn back to the localizer and confirm heading. After confirmation I immediately turned left to assigned heading. This is standard operating procedure.This raised another question. Why did Tower have us follow a localizer course instead of a heading giving him more accurate control? Everyone in aviation knows the erratic sensitivity of a localizer when in close proximity (overhead) of the runway; thus creating a potential compromise.I would also request the meaning behind; 'Big Guy;' by Tower when asking for the phone number the second time around. It almost sounded; emotive. This crew; on the other hand; maintained professional communication throughout. I would also request tapes of all radio transmissions from Approach Control (the one prior to tower hand off) through Tower and back to Approach (on go around) and back to tower the second time.I find it very curious that neither the first officer nor I EVER considered the possibility of a pilot deviation based on our quick response at handling the turn discrepancy. There certainly was no TCAS alerts or traffic displayed in alert format on our NAV display. It's almost as though the only possible way they knew I banked right initially was either visually or based on our confirmation request.Never; throughout that flight or through the remainder of our trip (this was the first leg of a four day trip) did either one of us mention such a possibility. I personally never even thought about such. Otherwise; based on my history; ofcourse I would have filed a report. It's also interesting this controller at that time never sounded as though there had been an issue such as pilot deviation. I've been in this industry long enough to know they commonly comment it there were. And why did it not come up with my phone call to approach control after the flight?I do think we need to investigate this thoroughly to find where all our weaknesses are so we can improve communications (if not procedures) in order to maintain a safe environment for our customers who count on our Professionalism. It's important we realize we're all on the same team where these issues are concerned. And please be advised; this crew did not deviate from FAA or Airline Company Procedures.




Synopsis: Arriving aircraft was issued a go-around due to insufficient spacing with the preceding aircraft.