Narrative:

During descent into crw; crew noted a storm cell on the departure end of runway 23. We were given direct stilt for the visual approach. Configuration began on a dogleg base; crew swapped to green needles to follow the ILS with the autopilot on. Configuration was complete shortly after the FAF; but it was noted that airspeed was hard to control. Transient conditions brought airspeed from vref to vref+20 at times. When cleared to land; tower called out gusting winds. The autopilot was disengaged when it chased the glide slope in an uncomfortable; and dangerous; descent rate; causing a non-transient +1;000 ft/min. This was corrected before 1;000 ft. During stabilized calls; the crew noted some transient conditions including the higher speed and reference the previously briefed the higher vref gust factor. It was noted that wind shear occurred on short final approximately 400 ft AGL. Moderate turbulence also began and workload increased to keep it stable and on glide path using the VASI. Due to the higher speed because of suspected wind shear; the captain (ca) fought hard to lower the speed without allowing the engines to fall to idle. A gross float over the runway occurred and once I (the pilot monitoring) saw the approaching 3;000 ft boards; I called a go-around. Simultaneously; the main wheels touched down and the pilot and I performed the balked landing procedures; which I felt were properly made. Liftoff occurred after spool up. A decision to enter the left traffic pattern was made to attempt another approach. [The possibility] of going to our alternate was discussed.base turn was near stilt and configuration was approximately at the same point. Again the autopilot struggled with the glide slope and manual control was taken. Both airspeed and sink rate was too high during a stabilization call (can't remember if at 1;000 ft or 500 ft) and another go around was performed. After cleaning up; we discussed diverting. We noted our heavy tanker fuel and decided to attempt one more approach then divert if needed. We agreed a longer approach was required. After configuring earlier than before (around 5 miles) we were able to keep the aircraft stable enough after having to manually fly after the autopilot; again; struggled. We landed uneventfully within the first third of the runway. All three approaches experienced a 'burble' on short final where the autopilot struggled and pushed the nose down to unstable conditions. We felt that windshear caused by the storm and hills contributed to this. No wind shear warnings were provided by the aircraft. [Suggest] more training on what should be labeled as transient conditions for stabilized approach criteria. Flight test autopilot for rapid descents to correct glideslope.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-200 First Officer reported performing two go-around maneuvers in gusty wind conditions before a successful landing was made on the third attempt.

Narrative: During descent into CRW; crew noted a storm cell on the departure end of Runway 23. We were given direct STILT for the visual approach. Configuration began on a dogleg base; Crew swapped to green needles to follow the ILS with the autopilot on. Configuration was complete shortly after the FAF; but it was noted that airspeed was hard to control. Transient conditions brought airspeed from Vref to Vref+20 at times. When cleared to land; Tower called out gusting winds. The autopilot was disengaged when it chased the glide slope in an uncomfortable; and dangerous; descent rate; causing a non-transient +1;000 ft/min. This was corrected before 1;000 ft. During stabilized calls; the crew noted some transient conditions including the higher speed and reference the previously briefed the higher Vref gust factor. It was noted that wind shear occurred on short final approximately 400 ft AGL. Moderate turbulence also began and workload increased to keep it stable and on glide path using the VASI. Due to the higher speed because of suspected wind shear; the Captain (CA) fought hard to lower the speed without allowing the engines to fall to idle. A gross float over the runway occurred and once I (the pilot monitoring) saw the approaching 3;000 ft boards; I called a Go-Around. Simultaneously; the main wheels touched down and the pilot and I performed the Balked Landing procedures; which I felt were properly made. Liftoff occurred after spool up. A decision to enter the left traffic pattern was made to attempt another approach. [The possibility] of going to our alternate was discussed.Base turn was near STILT and configuration was approximately at the same point. Again the autopilot struggled with the glide slope and manual control was taken. Both airspeed and sink rate was too high during a stabilization call (can't remember if at 1;000 ft or 500 ft) and another GO around was performed. After cleaning up; we discussed diverting. We noted our heavy tanker fuel and decided to attempt one more approach then divert if needed. We agreed a longer approach was required. After configuring earlier than before (around 5 miles) we were able to keep the aircraft stable enough after having to manually fly after the autopilot; again; struggled. We landed uneventfully within the first third of the runway. All three approaches experienced a 'burble' on short final where the autopilot struggled and pushed the nose down to unstable conditions. We felt that windshear caused by the storm and hills contributed to this. No wind shear warnings were provided by the aircraft. [Suggest] more training on what should be labeled as transient conditions for stabilized approach criteria. Flight test autopilot for rapid descents to correct glideslope.

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.