Narrative:

When cleared for runway 25L ILS, approach mode of autoplt was armed and localizer and GS were almost immediately captured. GS signal was stable and no instrument warning flags in view, even though GS runway 25L was notamed out beyond 10 DME. While descending on GS, socal approach asked our altitude approaching fuelr. We were out of 8300 ft. Socal said we had busted a 'mandatory' altitude at suzzi. Is it conceivable that socal approach thinks it is good operating practice to generate minimum crossing altitudes by notaming out the GS? If those altitudes are required and important they should be charted as such. Further, informing an air crew of a possible altitude bust while in the sterile cockpit environment is an unnecessary distraction with serious safety implications. It should never be done on a 'gotcha' basis, as was the case here.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC ON ILS APCH FLIES BELOW XING ALTS AT SUZZI AND FUELR.

Narrative: WHEN CLRED FOR RWY 25L ILS, APCH MODE OF AUTOPLT WAS ARMED AND LOC AND GS WERE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY CAPTURED. GS SIGNAL WAS STABLE AND NO INST WARNING FLAGS IN VIEW, EVEN THOUGH GS RWY 25L WAS NOTAMED OUT BEYOND 10 DME. WHILE DSNDING ON GS, SOCAL APCH ASKED OUR ALT APCHING FUELR. WE WERE OUT OF 8300 FT. SOCAL SAID WE HAD BUSTED A 'MANDATORY' ALT AT SUZZI. IS IT CONCEIVABLE THAT SOCAL APCH THINKS IT IS GOOD OPERATING PRACTICE TO GENERATE MINIMUM XING ALTS BY NOTAMING OUT THE GS? IF THOSE ALTS ARE REQUIRED AND IMPORTANT THEY SHOULD BE CHARTED AS SUCH. FURTHER, INFORMING AN AIR CREW OF A POSSIBLE ALT BUST WHILE IN THE STERILE COCKPIT ENVIRONMENT IS AN UNNECESSARY DISTR WITH SERIOUS SAFETY IMPLICATIONS. IT SHOULD NEVER BE DONE ON A 'GOTCHA' BASIS, AS WAS THE CASE HERE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.