Narrative:

On approach to runway 4R in bos; at night with marginal VMC weather conditions being reported on ATIS; approaching intersection miltt switched to bos tower frequency 128.8. Tower was informing the aircrafts ahead of us that there was a tall vessels in the approach area. [Having both flown in to bos many times] we both have encountered this situation before. We immediately reset our descent minimums and re-briefed the approach and landing. We expected to land as the reported ATIS weather conditions were well above the minimum requirements for a tall vessels landing to runway 4R. As is usually the case when a tall vessels enters the safety area at bos the tower controller and preceding aircraft (maybe not bos based crews or familiar with this procedure) appeared to be caught off guard without a plan or alternative course of action for this situation. The result was a bos tower directed go-around to multiple aircraft (including ours) both ahead and behind our aircraft. Bos tower did not issue a reason (such as the ships height exceeded the maximum 144 ft. For runway 4R) and the radio frequency was too congested to inquire. When we were switched back to approach controller we were initially told to expect the RNAV approach to runway 4R and we were issued a vector consistent with a runway 4R approach. As additional aircraft checked on to approach frequency from the tower directed missed approach two aircraft originally behind us in landing sequence declared minimum fuel. ATC vectored those aircraft ahead of us for a subsequent landing. This resulted in additional vectoring for our aircraft to reshuffle the landing order. After setting up and briefing the RNAV approach to runway 4R the approach controller reported an RVR of 2200 ft. For runway 4R. We along with another company aircraft informed the controller that we needed 6000 RVR to execute the RNAV runway 4R approach. Approach then told us to expect the ILS to runway 33L an issued a heading consistent with a downwind for runway 33L. The approach controller did inform us that coordination needed to be done with bos tower and it might take some time. At some point in this extended process (my recollection) an aircraft [from a different airline] had to divert due to its fuel state. After setting up and briefing the ILS to runway 33L at bos we were informed that we would be going back to runway 4R in bos. Probably because by now the tall ship had cleared the channel. This involved lengthier vectoring and eventually we reached the point where we had to declare minimum fuel ourselves. We reset and re-briefed the runway 4R approach in bos. This was the fourth briefing and set up we had to preform within 30 minutes. We touched down with 300 lbs. Of fuel (~3 minutes of flying time) above our calculated bingo fuel of 8000 lbs. For ZZZ.these multiple go-arounds and diversions appeared potentially unnecessary; costly; and potentially dangerous. A more timely notice to the bos tower controller of an approaching tall vessel should have allowed sufficient time to develop and execute an alternative approach and landing runway plan. This information should be relayed to aircraft on approach frequency and not sprung on unfamiliar crews on short final to landing. There must be existing technology that can be utilized or procedures developed to alert the tower controller well in advance of a tall vessel entering an area that impact arrivals to runway 4R in bos. This is especially crucial at night in IMC conditions during busy arrival times.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-8 Captain reported Approach Control procedure regarding tall vessels affecting landing aircraft needs to be updated to eliminate unnecessary multiple go-arounds and diversions.

Narrative: On approach to Runway 4R in BOS; at night with marginal VMC weather conditions being reported on ATIS; approaching intersection MILTT switched to BOS Tower frequency 128.8. Tower was informing the aircrafts ahead of us that there was a tall vessels in the approach area. [Having both flown in to BOS many times] we both have encountered this situation before. We immediately reset our descent minimums and re-briefed the approach and landing. We expected to land as the reported ATIS weather conditions were well above the minimum requirements for a tall vessels landing to Runway 4R. As is usually the case when a tall vessels enters the safety area at BOS the Tower Controller and preceding aircraft (maybe not BOS based crews or familiar with this procedure) appeared to be caught off guard without a plan or alternative course of action for this situation. The result was a BOS tower directed go-around to multiple aircraft (including ours) both ahead and behind our aircraft. BOS tower did not issue a reason (such as the ships height exceeded the maximum 144 ft. for Runway 4R) and the radio frequency was too congested to inquire. When we were switched back to Approach Controller we were initially told to expect the RNAV approach to Runway 4R and we were issued a vector consistent with a Runway 4R approach. As additional aircraft checked on to Approach frequency from the tower directed missed approach two aircraft originally behind us in landing sequence declared minimum fuel. ATC vectored those aircraft ahead of us for a subsequent landing. This resulted in additional vectoring for our aircraft to reshuffle the landing order. After setting up and briefing the RNAV approach to Runway 4R the Approach Controller reported an RVR of 2200 ft. for Runway 4R. We along with another company aircraft informed the controller that we needed 6000 RVR to execute the RNAV Runway 4R approach. Approach then told us to expect the ILS to Runway 33L an issued a heading consistent with a downwind for Runway 33L. The Approach Controller did inform us that coordination needed to be done with BOS Tower and it might take some time. At some point in this extended process (my recollection) an aircraft [from a different airline] had to divert due to its fuel state. After setting up and briefing the ILS to Runway 33L at BOS we were informed that we would be going back to Runway 4R in BOS. Probably because by now the tall ship had cleared the channel. This involved lengthier vectoring and eventually we reached the point where we had to declare minimum fuel ourselves. We reset and re-briefed the Runway 4R approach in BOS. This was the fourth briefing and set up we had to preform within 30 minutes. We touched down with 300 lbs. of fuel (~3 minutes of flying time) above our calculated bingo fuel of 8000 lbs. for ZZZ.These multiple go-arounds and diversions appeared potentially unnecessary; costly; and potentially dangerous. A more timely notice to the BOS Tower Controller of an approaching tall vessel should have allowed sufficient time to develop and execute an alternative approach and landing Runway plan. This information should be relayed to aircraft on Approach frequency and not sprung on unfamiliar crews on short final to landing. There must be existing technology that can be utilized or procedures developed to alert the Tower Controller well in advance of a tall vessel entering an area that impact arrivals to Runway 4R in BOS. This is especially crucial at night in IMC conditions during busy arrival times.

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.