Narrative:

At approximately 300 ft AGL on a landing to runway 27L at ord; tower commanded a go around. During the missed approach; I asked tower why they had done so and they answered their radar had shown a return on a taxiway appearing to be another aircraft headed for an incursion onto our runway; though later it showed to be a false return. We were told to expect a short pattern for our next approach. Switching back to approach control off the missed approach; we were told to expect vectors for runway 27R. When steady on a 090 degree heading; 4;000 ft MSL and established downwind about 1 mile outside the marker; we were given a right turn to 180 degrees. When established on that heading and realizing we would be high at the marker if not cleared to a lower altitude; I asked for lower. The controller's response was to say 'turn further left to a 080 degree heading!' I stated we were on a 180 degree heading as directed; turning left to 080 degrees. In the turn; we continued to scan our TCAS indicator as it now appeared we were given the turn to base in error and were now impinging on the track of aircraft established on final at 3;000 ft. In the turn; we received a TA from the aircraft established on final outside of our turn and below us. Approach control gave us further left heading commands (about 040 degrees) for a short period before a downwind heading again of 090 degrees. The remaining vectors; approach; and landing on runway 27R were uneventful. Though being given a missed approach command on short final in snow at night when the runway is visually confirmed clear of conflict (from the cockpit) for what apparently was a false indication is frustrating; I certainly applaud the tower controller for making their decision based on all of the data they had before them. Better to be conservative and safe. This was the first officer's leg and he did a fine job of flying both approaches and the missed approach. When he and I were busy on downwind reprogramming the FMS and re-planning an approach to a different runway; I elected to take the aircraft so he could set up and brief the new approach. This is good but leaves only 1 person flying and listening. That is normal here and was not a problem; but left us with 1 less set of ears. Because we were told to expect a short approach on the second one (after the missed approach); being given a downwind turn shortly outside of abeam to the marker seemed reasonable. Being still high at that point did not and that is why I asked her for a lower altitude. That alerted her to the fact we were not where she thought we were. When advised by me we were on a 180 degree heading as assigned she did not question that but immediately and successfully worked the problem; to her credit. This was a long night for ord approach control with many IMC approaches.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier landing ORD described ATC directed go around event because of runway incursion alert and subsequent questionable pattern vectors for a second approach.

Narrative: At approximately 300 FT AGL on a landing to Runway 27L at ORD; Tower commanded a go around. During the missed approach; I asked tower why they had done so and they answered their radar had shown a return on a taxiway appearing to be another aircraft headed for an incursion onto our runway; though later it showed to be a false return. We were told to expect a short pattern for our next approach. Switching back to Approach Control off the missed approach; we were told to expect vectors for Runway 27R. When steady on a 090 degree heading; 4;000 FT MSL and established downwind about 1 mile outside the marker; we were given a right turn to 180 degrees. When established on that heading and realizing we would be high at the marker if not cleared to a lower altitude; I asked for lower. The Controller's response was to say 'turn further left to a 080 degree heading!' I stated we were on a 180 degree heading as directed; turning left to 080 degrees. In the turn; we continued to scan our TCAS indicator as it now appeared we were given the turn to base in error and were now impinging on the track of aircraft established on final at 3;000 FT. In the turn; we received a TA from the aircraft established on final outside of our turn and below us. Approach Control gave us further left heading commands (about 040 degrees) for a short period before a downwind heading again of 090 degrees. The remaining vectors; approach; and landing on Runway 27R were uneventful. Though being given a missed approach command on short final in snow at night when the runway is visually confirmed clear of conflict (from the cockpit) for what apparently was a false indication is frustrating; I certainly applaud the Tower Controller for making their decision based on all of the data they had before them. Better to be conservative and safe. This was the First Officer's leg and he did a fine job of flying both approaches and the missed approach. When he and I were busy on downwind reprogramming the FMS and re-planning an approach to a different runway; I elected to take the aircraft so he could set up and brief the new approach. This is good but leaves only 1 person flying and listening. That is normal here and was not a problem; but left us with 1 less set of ears. Because we were told to expect a short approach on the second one (after the missed approach); being given a downwind turn shortly outside of abeam to the marker seemed reasonable. Being still high at that point did not and that is why I asked her for a lower altitude. That alerted her to the fact we were not where she thought we were. When advised by me we were on a 180 degree heading as assigned she did not question that but immediately and successfully worked the problem; to her credit. This was a long night for ORD Approach Control with many IMC approaches.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.