Narrative:

Aircraft was cleared for a visual approach approximately 8 mi from airport. Approximately flight path followed localizer to runway 6. Captain (PF) flew slightly fast all the way down ILS/visual GS. This resulted in aircraft being outside company flight operations manual parameters at 500 ft AGL. At 100-200 ft AGL, company check airman (reporter) directed captain to execute missed approach due to airspeed being too fast and power being too low, ie, bug +30 KTS at 500 ft, bug +25 KTS at 400 ft, bug +20 KTS at 300 ft, bug +15 KTS at 200 ft, power constant at 1800 pph per engine. On go around, captain climbed above ATC assigned go around altitude, resulting in a downwind altitude of 3000 ft MSL (approximately 2700 ft AGL). This was followed by a premature descent during turn to base leg, causing a base leg that was too low and at a relatively high (noisy) power setting. Captain was given unsatisfactory evaluation for line check. First officer (PNF) was not formally evaluated due to having been previously evaluated by same check airman approximately 1 week prior. First officer and so were thoroughly debriefed and check airman flew 3 subsequent segments with them with absolutely standardized, correct performance.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B727 CREW EXECUTED A GAR DUE TO AN UNSTABILIZED APCH.

Narrative: ACFT WAS CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH APPROX 8 MI FROM ARPT. APPROX FLT PATH FOLLOWED LOC TO RWY 6. CAPT (PF) FLEW SLIGHTLY FAST ALL THE WAY DOWN ILS/VISUAL GS. THIS RESULTED IN ACFT BEING OUTSIDE COMPANY FLT OPS MANUAL PARAMETERS AT 500 FT AGL. AT 100-200 FT AGL, COMPANY CHK AIRMAN (RPTR) DIRECTED CAPT TO EXECUTE MISSED APCH DUE TO AIRSPD BEING TOO FAST AND PWR BEING TOO LOW, IE, BUG +30 KTS AT 500 FT, BUG +25 KTS AT 400 FT, BUG +20 KTS AT 300 FT, BUG +15 KTS AT 200 FT, PWR CONSTANT AT 1800 PPH PER ENG. ON GAR, CAPT CLBED ABOVE ATC ASSIGNED GAR ALT, RESULTING IN A DOWNWIND ALT OF 3000 FT MSL (APPROX 2700 FT AGL). THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A PREMATURE DSCNT DURING TURN TO BASE LEG, CAUSING A BASE LEG THAT WAS TOO LOW AND AT A RELATIVELY HIGH (NOISY) PWR SETTING. CAPT WAS GIVEN UNSATISFACTORY EVALUATION FOR LINE CHK. FO (PNF) WAS NOT FORMALLY EVALUATED DUE TO HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY EVALUATED BY SAME CHK AIRMAN APPROX 1 WK PRIOR. FO AND SO WERE THOROUGHLY DEBRIEFED AND CHK AIRMAN FLEW 3 SUBSEQUENT SEGMENTS WITH THEM WITH ABSOLUTELY STANDARDIZED, CORRECT PERFORMANCE.

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.