Air carrier first officer reported experiencing an unstabilized approach and electing to go-a round.

Narrative:

On visual final to [runway] xx at ZZZ; backed up with an ILS; I was pilot monitoring. Vectors and descent from center and ZZZ approach brought the aircraft in steep; relatively high energy; and on a short turn to final. At the time; the aircraft was very light on payload and fuel (I believe a vref of about 118 with flaps 25); so the aircraft was slow to decelerate; but significantly overpowered with high thrust settings. The geometry that approach was using was greater than 90 degrees to final; which led us to assume we were being vectored through the approach course for a longer final. Approach then cleared us for the visual to xx. The ca executed a turn to final and descended to 5;100 feet MSL; but due to energy state and angle-off of final elected to go-around; which was the conservative call. He directed me to ask for; and I asked for a left visual 360; which tower denied. ZZZ tower then directed the aircraft to climb to 6;500 feet MSL and fly a heading. 6;500 feet was set in the MCP window. With the aircraft going around; I called the altitude as the aircraft approached 6;500. Simultaneous to this I was deconfiguring flaps as the ca turned toward the assigned heading. I observed the altitude high and said 'altitude high' or something similar twice. The ca disengaged the autopilot and hand-flew returning to 6;500 feet. No mention of altitude was made by either ZZZ tower; or ZZZ approach when we returned to their frequency. The subsequent approach was uneventful. An aggravating factor to this was the short final and high energy state that approach was attempting to set up for us. If I were to do this again I would either ask for extended vectors or an instrument approach to better manage energy. For the go-around itself; because it was initiated before the aircraft started descending on glide slope; managing altitude; heading; and thrust independently similar to an RNAV/rnp go-around would have helped mitigate the altitude issue. I believe I was proactive in calling the approach to the assigned altitude; as well as making calls when the aircraft climbed above that. The PF was doing a good job of flying the aircraft through a non-standard missed approach (the assigned altitude and heading were not what the instrument approach go-around are); but the performance impacts of a very light aircraft under go-around thrust made it difficult to immediately arrest the climb rate.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier First Officer reported experiencing an unstabilized approach and electing to go-a round.

Narrative: On visual final to [Runway] XX at ZZZ; backed up with an ILS; I was pilot monitoring. Vectors and descent from Center and ZZZ Approach brought the aircraft in steep; relatively high energy; and on a short turn to final. At the time; the aircraft was very light on payload and fuel (I believe a Vref of about 118 with flaps 25); so the aircraft was slow to decelerate; but significantly overpowered with high thrust settings. The geometry that Approach was using was greater than 90 degrees to final; which led us to assume we were being vectored through the approach course for a longer final. Approach then cleared us for the visual to XX. The CA executed a turn to final and descended to 5;100 feet MSL; but due to energy state and angle-off of final elected to go-around; which was the conservative call. He directed me to ask for; and I asked for a left visual 360; which Tower denied. ZZZ Tower then directed the aircraft to climb to 6;500 feet MSL and fly a heading. 6;500 feet was set in the MCP window. With the aircraft going around; I called the altitude as the aircraft approached 6;500. Simultaneous to this I was deconfiguring flaps as the CA turned toward the assigned heading. I observed the altitude high and said 'Altitude High' or something similar twice. The CA disengaged the autopilot and hand-flew returning to 6;500 feet. No mention of altitude was made by either ZZZ Tower; or ZZZ Approach when we returned to their frequency. The subsequent approach was uneventful. An aggravating factor to this was the short final and high energy state that approach was attempting to set up for us. If I were to do this again I would either ask for extended vectors or an instrument approach to better manage energy. For the go-around itself; because it was initiated before the aircraft started descending on glide slope; managing altitude; heading; and thrust independently similar to an RNAV/RNP go-around would have helped mitigate the altitude issue. I believe I was proactive in calling the approach to the assigned altitude; as well as making calls when the aircraft climbed above that. The PF was doing a good job of flying the aircraft through a non-standard missed approach (the assigned altitude and heading were not what the instrument approach go-around are); but the performance impacts of a very light aircraft under go-around thrust made it difficult to immediately arrest the climb rate.

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	1750008
Time
Date	202007
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Dawn
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach Landing
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	First Officer Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 109 Flight Crew Total 3938 Flight Crew Type 144
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Altitude Overshoot Deviation - Procedural Clearance Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach