Narrative:

This leg was the first officer's leg into bhm after a long duty day from ZZZZ. He was shooting a visual approach into runway 24. He was cleared for the visual about 3 mi outside roeby (OM). He was around 200 KTS but about 1500 ft too high for roeby but descending. I encouraged him to get down quickly with the gear and he did. A very big factor here was that we had a 30 KT tailwind at 3000 ft MSL and it increased to a 40 KT tailwind at 2000 ft MSL. The wind on the ground was called at calm. He continued the approach; but at 1200 ft AGL I called for a go around because it was obvious to me that we were too high for a stabilized approach. My first officer decided to do a discontinued approach instead of a go around. He selected 'lvlch' and we began to climb; at a positive rate the gear was retracted and at flap retract speed the flaps were retracted. During all of these events we were communicating with the approach controller and never talked to the tower. During the missed approach after we reestablished contact with approach control the controller gave us a heading of 360 degrees and altitude of 3000 ft. The communication was strained at best because of the confusion in the cockpit and the controller was not expecting us to miss with such good WX. Upon reaching 3000 ft MSL the first officer did not level off and I requested that he level at 3000 ft twice. When he reached an altitude of almost 3200 ft MSL and was accelerating I announced that I had control of the airplane and began to level the airplane at 3230 ft MSL. I proceeded to turn off the autoplt and the autothrottles and reduce the speed and altitude. The speed never got about 210 KTS and we immediately reestablished 3000 ft MSL. The controller asked us our altitude and heading and we said 3000 ft and heading 360 degrees by now. He proceeded to vector us for another visual approach to runway 24. A side note; a DC9 went around directly behind us for unknown reasons. The vectors the controller gave us for the next approach were not what we were expecting. He gave us a turn inside the marker at 3000 ft and cleared us for the approach. The marker altitude was supposed to be around 2100 ft MSL. After an s-turn on final we were finally on profile around 800 ft AGL. I asked if we were cleared to land but the controller never gave us a switch to tower. The first officer switched to the published tower frequency; but there was no answer. So I had to make another missed approach. The missed approach was textbook and uneventful. A new controller came on the radio and gave us vectors for a full ILS approach. At this point she asked what the problem was and I informed her of that we had a tailwind of 30 KTS. We further realized that the tailwind increased to 40 KTS at 2000 ft MSL and then died down to calm at the runway. We came to find that the tower frequency was not the published one on the plate. I did not hear that on the ATIS nor did I see it on the NOTAMS. Another factor in the missed approach was that the approach lighting system for runway 24 was OTS; as well as the PAPI was OTS. The final approach and landing for the ILS approach was normal and uneventful. The first officer and I have fully discussed the problems of the missed approach and how to handle it differently in the future.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A300 FLT CREW ABANDONS AN APCH TO BHM ACCOUNT HIGH AND FAST DUE TO HIGH TAILWINDS. MAKE GAR FROM SECOND APCH ACCOUNT UNABLE TO CONTACT TWR. LAND SUCCESSFULLY ON THIRD ATTEMPT.

Narrative: THIS LEG WAS THE FO'S LEG INTO BHM AFTER A LONG DUTY DAY FROM ZZZZ. HE WAS SHOOTING A VISUAL APCH INTO RWY 24. HE WAS CLRED FOR THE VISUAL ABOUT 3 MI OUTSIDE ROEBY (OM). HE WAS AROUND 200 KTS BUT ABOUT 1500 FT TOO HIGH FOR ROEBY BUT DSNDING. I ENCOURAGED HIM TO GET DOWN QUICKLY WITH THE GEAR AND HE DID. A VERY BIG FACTOR HERE WAS THAT WE HAD A 30 KT TAILWIND AT 3000 FT MSL AND IT INCREASED TO A 40 KT TAILWIND AT 2000 FT MSL. THE WIND ON THE GND WAS CALLED AT CALM. HE CONTINUED THE APCH; BUT AT 1200 FT AGL I CALLED FOR A GAR BECAUSE IT WAS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT WE WERE TOO HIGH FOR A STABILIZED APCH. MY FO DECIDED TO DO A DISCONTINUED APCH INSTEAD OF A GAR. HE SELECTED 'LVLCH' AND WE BEGAN TO CLB; AT A POSITIVE RATE THE GEAR WAS RETRACTED AND AT FLAP RETRACT SPD THE FLAPS WERE RETRACTED. DURING ALL OF THESE EVENTS WE WERE COMMUNICATING WITH THE APCH CTLR AND NEVER TALKED TO THE TWR. DURING THE MISSED APCH AFTER WE REESTABLISHED CONTACT WITH APCH CTL THE CTLR GAVE US A HDG OF 360 DEGS AND ALT OF 3000 FT. THE COM WAS STRAINED AT BEST BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSION IN THE COCKPIT AND THE CTLR WAS NOT EXPECTING US TO MISS WITH SUCH GOOD WX. UPON REACHING 3000 FT MSL THE FO DID NOT LEVEL OFF AND I REQUESTED THAT HE LEVEL AT 3000 FT TWICE. WHEN HE REACHED AN ALT OF ALMOST 3200 FT MSL AND WAS ACCELERATING I ANNOUNCED THAT I HAD CTL OF THE AIRPLANE AND BEGAN TO LEVEL THE AIRPLANE AT 3230 FT MSL. I PROCEEDED TO TURN OFF THE AUTOPLT AND THE AUTOTHROTTLES AND REDUCE THE SPD AND ALT. THE SPD NEVER GOT ABOUT 210 KTS AND WE IMMEDIATELY REESTABLISHED 3000 FT MSL. THE CTLR ASKED US OUR ALT AND HDG AND WE SAID 3000 FT AND HDG 360 DEGS BY NOW. HE PROCEEDED TO VECTOR US FOR ANOTHER VISUAL APCH TO RWY 24. A SIDE NOTE; A DC9 WENT AROUND DIRECTLY BEHIND US FOR UNKNOWN REASONS. THE VECTORS THE CTLR GAVE US FOR THE NEXT APCH WERE NOT WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING. HE GAVE US A TURN INSIDE THE MARKER AT 3000 FT AND CLRED US FOR THE APCH. THE MARKER ALT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AROUND 2100 FT MSL. AFTER AN S-TURN ON FINAL WE WERE FINALLY ON PROFILE AROUND 800 FT AGL. I ASKED IF WE WERE CLRED TO LAND BUT THE CTLR NEVER GAVE US A SWITCH TO TWR. THE FO SWITCHED TO THE PUBLISHED TWR FREQ; BUT THERE WAS NO ANSWER. SO I HAD TO MAKE ANOTHER MISSED APCH. THE MISSED APCH WAS TEXTBOOK AND UNEVENTFUL. A NEW CTLR CAME ON THE RADIO AND GAVE US VECTORS FOR A FULL ILS APCH. AT THIS POINT SHE ASKED WHAT THE PROB WAS AND I INFORMED HER OF THAT WE HAD A TAILWIND OF 30 KTS. WE FURTHER REALIZED THAT THE TAILWIND INCREASED TO 40 KTS AT 2000 FT MSL AND THEN DIED DOWN TO CALM AT THE RWY. WE CAME TO FIND THAT THE TWR FREQ WAS NOT THE PUBLISHED ONE ON THE PLATE. I DID NOT HEAR THAT ON THE ATIS NOR DID I SEE IT ON THE NOTAMS. ANOTHER FACTOR IN THE MISSED APCH WAS THAT THE APCH LIGHTING SYS FOR RWY 24 WAS OTS; AS WELL AS THE PAPI WAS OTS. THE FINAL APCH AND LNDG FOR THE ILS APCH WAS NORMAL AND UNEVENTFUL. THE FO AND I HAVE FULLY DISCUSSED THE PROBS OF THE MISSED APCH AND HOW TO HANDLE IT DIFFERENTLY IN THE FUTURE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.