Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working SDER providing sequencing to SAN Runway 27. A B737 was on a downwind being sequenced behind an A320 already on the final. A B757 was inbound from the east straight-in sequenced behind the B737. I turned the B737 to a heading of 180 to follow the A320 and I once again called the traffic to follow. He reported the traffic in sight and I instructed him to follow the traffic; maintain visual separation and maintain 5;000. The B757 reported the B737 in sight and I instructed him to follow and maintain visual separation. I could not clear either for the visual approach due to an aircraft crossing under the 8 NM final at SAN landing at SDM but they were cleared to follow and fully acknowledged the clearances. I observed a normal rate of turn from the B737 from the downwind to base at a high indicated airspeed. I judged the turn rate to be nominal and acceptable if he had kept turning to follow the A320. I advised him of the preceding A320's airspeed (180 KT) and he acknowledged. I advised him that I would be restricting him to at least 3;800 MSL due to the previously mentioned aircraft crossing under his final but for now maintain 5;000 MSL. He acknowledged. He appeared to slow his turn rate. I instructed him to try not to cross the localizer due to para jumping just south of the localizer. He acknowledged. I instructed him to expedite his turn to H290 to avoid jumpers. He acknowledged. I told him to turn immediately to H330. He acknowledged. The B757 became confused on which aircraft to follow because the B737 was flying south. I had already expedited the B737's turn to the north so turning the B757 to the north to follow would not have been feasibly at this point. I instructed the B757 to turn south to follow the B737 and expect to turn back north follow. Both aircraft were vectored through the jump zone. Jumpers were in the air at the time the B737 was in the area. Jumpers were held prior to the B757 entering the airspace. Upon review of the RADAR data; it appears to me that the B737 never turned towards the traffic to follow as assigned. Although I had approved an automated point out from SDZR who was working the jump aircraft and airspace; I did not expect any of my aircraft to perform in a manner that would have put them in conflict with the jump zone. I could have turned the B737 towards the runway prior to the jump zone. I relied on history trails which indicated to me that had he kept his turn going towards the aircraft to follow as instructed he would not have crossed the localizer. I also believe the SDM VOR'-A approach is unsafe because of the workload it places on the controllers and aircraft.


Second narrative: VMC conditions at SAN. We reported the airport and aircraft ahead of us in sight. ATC assigned us a heading of 180 (base leg to Runway 27) maintain 5;000; expect to maintain 3;800 to the 8 mile fix. The Controller cleared us to follow the aircraft ahead with no restrictions. A half mile from the localizer ATC requested that we not cross the extended center line as parachute jumping was in progress. ATC then cleared us to turn immediately to a heading of 330 as parachute jumpers were in the area south of the localizer. We complied banking the aircraft to 45 degrees and rolled out on a heading of 330. No information given to us concerning parachute jumping in progress until we were past the extended center line. Cause; ATC lack of information concerning parachute jumpers pilot in command lack of confirming our clearance and verbalizing my intentions. My lack of verifying what ATC expected us to do. Note: I was being given a line check from a check airmen in the right seat and a check airmen in training was observing from the jump seat. The three of us agreed that the clearance was confusing; but I am still responsible for verifying our clearance and I failed to do so.


Synopsis: SCT Controller described a conflict between an Air Carrier arrival to SAN and parachute operations near the localizer; the Controller indicating the clearance issued to the aircraft was not followed.