Narrative:

The CTAF airport ASOS was reporting a crosswind that favored runway xx by 10 degrees (150 at 6 KTS). We initially chose to utilize runway yy for two reasons; one was a more direct approach to the field limiting my exposure to an uncontrolled field and the requirement to stay within a 3.5 mile final for runway xx. The second; although not the deciding factor; was that we had been running late due to maintenance before our previous departure. We originally informed approach that we would be using runway yy but upon monitoring the airport's CTAF we changed to runway xx due to traffic in the pattern doing touch and goes. Being a long holiday weekend there was several targets on the TCAS showing at low levels in the vicinity of the airport. We entered the pattern mid field downwind after crossing over runway xx at 1;600 ft MSL. We were stating our intentions over CTAF and in communication with the C172 doing touch and goes and another aircraft entering the area for landing. We were fully configured for landing upon turning final and on speed. Staying within 3 miles I turned to final and misjudged the turn. We were right of centerline and too high to maintain a stabilized approach and executed a go around once we were established on the runway centerline. Upon climbing upwind we were rapidly closing in on the C172 in the pattern and as I banked away from traffic we received a bank angle aural warning in which I immediately corrected. Staying in the traffic pattern we landed runway xx without further incident. The event occurred due to misjudging my turn to final. The contributing factors that led to the misjudgment were: 1. Flying into an uncontrolled field. 2. GA traffic in the pattern with considerable differences in performance. 3. Requirement to stay within 3.5 miles on runway xx. In critical phases of flight when the workload is the heaviest; flying into an uncontrolled field in a CAT D aircraft at maximum landing weight (tankering) while flying in close proximity of small GA aircraft; it may be prudent to rethink this practice. Flying into an airfield such as this one removes several layers of protection. This type of flying; in my humble opinion; should be left to turboprops which are much better suited for this application.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ Captain executed a go around at a CTAF airport after he could not establish a stabilized approach because he misjudged his turn to final while observing a requirement to remain within 3.5 miles of the airport.

Narrative: The CTAF airport ASOS was reporting a crosswind that favored Runway XX by 10 degrees (150 at 6 KTS). We initially chose to utilize Runway YY for two reasons; one was a more direct approach to the field limiting my exposure to an uncontrolled field and the requirement to stay within a 3.5 mile final for Runway XX. The second; although not the deciding factor; was that we had been running late due to maintenance before our previous departure. We originally informed approach that we would be using Runway YY but upon monitoring the airport's CTAF we changed to Runway XX due to traffic in the pattern doing touch and goes. Being a long holiday weekend there was several targets on the TCAS showing at low levels in the vicinity of the airport. We entered the pattern mid field downwind after crossing over Runway XX at 1;600 FT MSL. We were stating our intentions over CTAF and in communication with the C172 doing touch and goes and another aircraft entering the area for landing. We were fully configured for landing upon turning final and on speed. Staying within 3 miles I turned to final and misjudged the turn. We were right of centerline and too high to maintain a stabilized approach and executed a go around once we were established on the runway centerline. Upon climbing upwind we were rapidly closing in on the C172 in the pattern and as I banked away from traffic we received a bank angle aural warning in which I immediately corrected. Staying in the traffic pattern we landed Runway XX without further incident. The event occurred due to misjudging my turn to final. The contributing factors that led to the misjudgment were: 1. Flying into an uncontrolled field. 2. GA traffic in the pattern with considerable differences in performance. 3. Requirement to stay within 3.5 miles on Runway XX. In critical phases of flight when the workload is the heaviest; flying into an uncontrolled field in a CAT D aircraft at maximum landing weight (tankering) while flying in close proximity of small GA aircraft; it may be prudent to rethink this practice. Flying into an airfield such as this one removes several layers of protection. This type of flying; in my humble opinion; should be left to turboprops which are much better suited for this application.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.