B737-700 flight crew reported setting incorrect minimums for the approach to runway 29 at msy.

Narrative:

We were operating a flight into msy and were on our third approach. The first approach resulted in a go-around due to excessive tailwind on final. The second approach to a different runway resulted in a missed approach due to the runway environment not being in sight at minimums. Our third approach was the GPS Y runway 29. While being vectored on downwind for the third approach; we inadvertently loaded lpv minimums into the baro selector instead of LNAV VNAV mins. The weather was well above mins for the LNAV/VNAV; with visibility at ten miles. We broke out around 600 to 700 ft AGL and landed uneventfully. I believe that the two missed approaches; combined with the tight sequencing for subsequent approaches by ATC; contributed to this error. Another contributing factor was that this was my first go-around in the actual aircraft and I was task saturated flying the aircraft. Task loading was high during this time; especially with the weather conditions.we could have requested a hold or delay vectors to buy more time. I know that we can't use lpv mins but simply missed the error due to task saturation. Another suggestion would be to remove lpv mins from our charts all together. We simply used the lowest mins to get in and they weren't available to us per the aom.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 flight crew reported setting incorrect minimums for the approach to Runway 29 at MSY.

Narrative: We were operating a flight into MSY and were on our third approach. The first approach resulted in a go-around due to excessive tailwind on final. The second approach to a different runway resulted in a missed approach due to the runway environment not being in sight at minimums. Our third approach was the GPS Y Runway 29. While being vectored on downwind for the third approach; we inadvertently loaded LPV minimums into the baro selector instead of LNAV VNAV mins. The weather was well above mins for the LNAV/VNAV; with visibility at ten miles. We broke out around 600 to 700 ft AGL and landed uneventfully. I believe that the two missed approaches; combined with the tight sequencing for subsequent approaches by ATC; contributed to this error. Another contributing factor was that this was my first go-around in the actual aircraft and I was task saturated flying the aircraft. Task loading was high during this time; especially with the weather conditions.We could have requested a hold or delay vectors to buy more time. I know that we can't use LPV mins but simply missed the error due to task saturation. Another suggestion would be to remove LPV mins from our charts all together. We simply used the lowest mins to get in and they weren't available to us per the AOM.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1518376
Time
Date	201802
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	MSY.TRACON
State Reference	LA
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B737-700
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	First Officer Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 351
Person 2
Function	Pilot Not Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 391
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence