Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBGR.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower SBGR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The flight was delayed almost an hour and a half. Nearing the Top of decent GRU; the arrival and approach were entered and verified in the FMC.   We were cleared for the arrival.  During the decent; ATC issued level off altitudes not on the arrival; and direct clearance to fixes further along the arrival requiring manual intervention several times.  Upon passing the last fix on the arrival; MARPU; aircraft was on speed and at 7000.Turned left and began descent to 5500 for UTKET.   We were cleared for the approach.  Just prior to UTKET; the controller issued 'maintain present heading'.  This was confusing and all three pilots were unsure if we were still cleared to intercept the LOC for the approach of if he intended for us to fly thru the LOC and abandon the intercept.  Pilot Flying engaged heading select which disabled LNAV and unarmed LOC capture.   ATC was asked by Pilot Not Flying if we were cleared for the approach.  ATC replied; 'maintain present heading; cleared for approach; report established'. 4200 feet was set in ALT window as we intercepted the final approach course.  At this point we were high on the profile and visually saw the runway confirming that we were high and needed gear and speed brakes to descend. Auto pilot was disconnected and FLCH selected and a rapid descent was initiated.  Upon reaching the outer marker; AC was on slightly high on the glideslope and slightly fast. After the OM AC continued to slow. However; speedbrakes remained extended; slowing AC below bug speed.  First Officer and FB both verbalized 'airspeed'.  PF corrected and airspeed increased to bug speed.  PF flew PAPI guidance; however was low on the glideslope.  Approx 300 ft PNF verbalized go around.  PF continued approach; but still low on path.  Approx 200 ft PNF verbalized go around.  PF corrected; increased power reduced decent rate continued approach and touched down approximately 1500 to 1800 feet down runway. Normal touchdown.The beginning of the event occurred on the arrival phase of the approach.  The crew had properly programmed; briefed and verified the arrival and approach.  When ATC issued level off altitudes and direct to fix clearances in conflict with the published arrival.  Manual intervention in the FMC was required.  This required the FMC to re-compute the descent path and speed. Removing one level of protection and increasing the workload for the crew.  The FMC was no longer in PATH so extra attention needed to be devoted to altitude and speed control on the arrival. Even after arriving at the final fix on the arrival; on speed and altitude; I felt the extra workload added to accomplish that; made me feel slightly behind the AC.  The next issue occurred after being cleared for the approach; and then told to maintain heading by ATC.  This was confusing for ALL crew.  I went to heading hold.  We now had lost two levels of protection; VNAV and LNAV.  After verifying that we could indeed turn to final; we were behind and now appeared to be high.  The first fix on the final; UTKET; is at 5500 feet; and has the AC 2 dots high on the glideslope.  We need to slow down and go down to intercept the glideslope.  And we need to do it now.  Autopilot off; FLCH; set speed.  Another level of protection gone.  In addition; even though ATC has us in radar contact; they want us to remember to report established.  This request is not necessary and adds more workload to the crew.  And; finally; the tower refuses to clear the AC to land until quite late into the approach. Which adds more stress to the crew. Had ATC respected the arrival as printed; cleared us for the arrival and approach to 9R at the beginning of the arrival as published; I would have been able to leave the automation in LNAV and VNAV and simply monitor and configure until glideslope intercept.  After what ATC did; the briefing we had done prior was pointless.In addition; on the approach plate; 21-5; the plan view of the ILS feather does not match the profile view location of the beginning of the feather.  The profile view is not to scale; and a viewing leads one to interpret UTKET as being just about on the extended glideslope; rather than 2 dots or so above the glideslope it actually is.I suggest a re-design of this arrival and approach to be better suited for RNAV and FMC flight guidance systems. And; a review of all the arrivals and approaches into GRU.  I also suggest that GRU ATC be briefed on the importance of allowing the aircraft to fly the arrival and approach as published.  With emphasis on the programming and briefings the crew is required to accomplish; and that the crew anticipates flying the published arrival.  In addition; the non-standard phraseology and the difficulty understanding someone who's first language is not English; adds to confusion and higher stress for the flight crew. I would also add that the fatigue inherent in flying all night was a factor.




Synopsis: Captain experiences ATC adding additional restrictions during the RNAV arrival to SBGR and a confusing clearance to intercept the localizer. This results in the approach starting high and fast and ending with the aircraft low and slow and the Pilot Monitoring calling for a go around. The Captain continues to a normal landing.