Narrative:

We were on the approach to ZZZ; about 18 mile final and were watching a large storm cell over the airport. As we got closer ATC issued a micro burst alert for 50 knot wind gains and losses on final. We elected to abandon the approach and since the cell appeared to be moving quickly across the field; we elected to have delay vectors to evaluate the rapidly changing weather. We had about 1+20 minutes of fuel remaining. We were sent on a heading to zzzzz intersection and switched to ZZZ1 approach. The controller there had clearly lost the picture of his traffic situation and did not answer our initial transmissions. We continued to have difficulty establishing communication with approach. The international relief officer (international relief officer) was communicating with dispatch to change our alternate to something closer to our current position than ZZZ2; but were told that none of the local area airports were suitable. We evaluated our fuel state and determined that we needed to divert to ZZZ2 without delay to arrive with sufficient fuel. Again; the controller seemed to not hear our transmissions and at one point made a blind broadcast to us by our transponder code. We finally got a heading to ZZZ2 after declaring minimum fuel. In addition; we had to deviate around scattered cells as we headed to ZZZ2. We were switched to ZZZ approach as we had to go by ZZZ on our way to ZZZ. The controller informed us that runway xyr was available for landing if we wanted it. We evaluated the situation and saw a large gap between cells that would allow a visual approach. We were vectored till we saw the airport and were cleared for a visual approach to xyr. I noticed the first officer appeared to have the wrong runway in sight and was slightly high on the approach. He reported xyr in sight and I was providing verbal corrections to position us for the visual approach. We had to maneuver around a rain shower between us and the runway and I noticed we were trending too low when we got a below glide slope alert. We immediately corrected back to course and because of our position on an angling left base; we needed to make a turn to line up with the runway at 700 feet. My normal reaction is not to try to salvage a bad approach; but to go around and do it again. I felt that considering our fuel state; about 40 min remaining; and the rapidly changing weather we needed to land rather than go around; and that we could do it safely. The approach resembled the igs [instrument guidance system] into the old hong kong airport. We were lined up and on speed at 400 feet and the wind at the airport remained less than 5 knots. We landed exactly in the touchdown zone and taxied to the gate without further incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B747 flight crew reported beginning to divert due to weather and minimum fuel but ended up going to the original destination.

Narrative: We were on the approach to ZZZ; about 18 mile final and were watching a large storm cell over the airport. As we got closer ATC issued a micro burst alert for 50 knot wind gains and losses on final. We elected to abandon the approach and since the cell appeared to be moving quickly across the field; we elected to have delay vectors to evaluate the rapidly changing weather. We had about 1+20 minutes of fuel remaining. We were sent on a heading to ZZZZZ intersection and switched to ZZZ1 approach. The controller there had clearly lost the picture of his traffic situation and did not answer our initial transmissions. We continued to have difficulty establishing communication with approach. The IRO (International Relief Officer) was communicating with dispatch to change our alternate to something closer to our current position than ZZZ2; but were told that none of the local area airports were suitable. We evaluated our fuel state and determined that we needed to divert to ZZZ2 without delay to arrive with sufficient fuel. Again; the controller seemed to not hear our transmissions and at one point made a blind broadcast to us by our transponder code. We finally got a heading to ZZZ2 after declaring minimum fuel. In addition; we had to deviate around scattered cells as we headed to ZZZ2. We were switched to ZZZ approach as we had to go by ZZZ on our way to ZZZ. The controller informed us that Runway XYR was available for landing if we wanted it. We evaluated the situation and saw a large gap between cells that would allow a visual approach. We were vectored till we saw the airport and were cleared for a visual approach to XYR. I noticed the First Officer appeared to have the wrong runway in sight and was slightly high on the approach. He reported XYR in sight and I was providing verbal corrections to position us for the visual approach. We had to maneuver around a rain shower between us and the runway and I noticed we were trending too low when we got a below glide slope alert. We immediately corrected back to course and because of our position on an angling left base; we needed to make a turn to line up with the runway at 700 feet. My normal reaction is not to try to salvage a bad approach; but to go around and do it again. I felt that considering our fuel state; about 40 min remaining; and the rapidly changing weather we needed to land rather than go around; and that we could do it safely. The approach resembled the IGS [Instrument Guidance System] into the old Hong Kong airport. We were lined up and on speed at 400 feet and the wind at the airport remained less than 5 knots. We landed exactly in the touchdown zone and taxied to the gate without further incident.

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.