Narrative:

Executing FLIPR4 arrival to localizer runway 9; there were large thunderstorms approaching mia from the west. With heavy arrival traffic; the controllers were unable to route arrivals to completely avoid the weather. Coming in on final; we had to fly through very heavy rain and turbulence approaching iness. Out of concern for windshear; the first officer attempted to maintain extra speed and as clean a configuration as possible; with which judgement I concurred. ATC was assigning the airspeeds; as traffic was spaced closely. We planned flaps 30; because it had appeared from the radar that the runway would be wet. We approached 1500 MSL and iness with 150 KIAS assigned; flaps 20; and gear up. At this point we came out of the rain; and had good visual conditions for landing; and were lined up on final and on the glideslope according the papis. The first officer called for gear down and flaps 25; but I had to wait for flaps 25 until the gear showed down. With the gear down; selected flaps 25; but we experienced a windshear which raised the IAS above the 162 maximum for flaps 30. The first officer took maneuvering action to reduce; so we could select 30; but by this time we were below 1000 AGL. With the new requirement to not complete any of the last 3 items of the landing checklist before final flaps; the checklist also had to be completed below 1000 feet. I made the command decision; that with the hazardous weather conditions (a major thunderstorm minutes from the airport; with others in the area); a go-around would be more dangerous than continuing the approach; as we were on centerline; on glidepath; and correcting to approach speed; in visual conditions with a 13;000 foot runway in sight; so we proceeded to a normal landing and rollout.this would have been much easier; had the ILS to runway 9 been active; instead of trying to comply with the localizer only approach. The localizer only approach puts the aircraft above optimum glidepath at iness; making speed reduction more difficult on the steeper path required after iness. As it was; when we got into visual conditions; we were able to use the papis for glidepath guidance; which worked out ok. Had we not achieved visual conditions before 1000 AGL; a go-around back into the hazardous weather would have been unavoidable. I would suggest that mia airport do what is necessary to get the full ILS back in operation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 Captain reports having to penetrate heavy rain and turbulence while conducting a localizer only approach. Due to gusty wind conditions the final flap selection was delayed until the indicated airspeed permitted; resulting in the final configuration not being achieved prior to 1000 feet AGL. The captain evaluated landing versus going around in increasingly hazardous weather conditions and elected to land.

Narrative: Executing FLIPR4 arrival to LOC RWY 9; there were large thunderstorms approaching MIA from the west. With heavy arrival traffic; the controllers were unable to route arrivals to completely avoid the weather. Coming in on final; we had to fly through very heavy rain and turbulence approaching INESS. Out of concern for windshear; the FO attempted to maintain extra speed and as clean a configuration as possible; with which judgement I concurred. ATC was assigning the airspeeds; as traffic was spaced closely. We planned flaps 30; because it had appeared from the radar that the runway would be wet. We approached 1500 MSL and INESS with 150 KIAS assigned; flaps 20; and gear up. At this point we came out of the rain; and had good visual conditions for landing; and were lined up on final and on the glideslope according the PAPIs. The FO called for gear down and flaps 25; but I had to wait for flaps 25 until the gear showed down. With the gear down; selected flaps 25; but we experienced a windshear which raised the IAS above the 162 maximum for flaps 30. The FO took maneuvering action to reduce; so we could select 30; but by this time we were below 1000 AGL. With the new requirement to not complete any of the last 3 items of the landing checklist before final flaps; the checklist also had to be completed below 1000 feet. I made the command decision; that with the hazardous weather conditions (a major thunderstorm minutes from the airport; with others in the area); a go-around would be more dangerous than continuing the approach; as we were on centerline; on glidepath; and correcting to approach speed; in visual conditions with a 13;000 foot runway in sight; so we proceeded to a normal landing and rollout.This would have been much easier; had the ILS to runway 9 been active; instead of trying to comply with the LOC only approach. The LOC only approach puts the aircraft above optimum glidepath at INESS; making speed reduction more difficult on the steeper path required after INESS. As it was; when we got into visual conditions; we were able to use the PAPIs for glidepath guidance; which worked out ok. Had we not achieved visual conditions before 1000 AGL; a go-around back into the hazardous weather would have been unavoidable. I would suggest that MIA airport do what is necessary to get the full ILS back in operation.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.