Narrative:

Go around executed after visual approach to runway 7R, when not stabilized by 500 ft AGL due to very strong tailwind (40 KTS at 4000 ft AGL, decreasing to 14 KTS short final) with surface winds at 120 degrees/10 KTS. During initial phase of go around, when still above concrete received 'traffic' TCASII advisory. Upon climb out, ATC queried, 'air carrier X, do you need assistance?' the captain responded, 'negative.' we received a second 'traffic' TCASII advisory. ATC again queried, 'air carrier X, do you need assistance?' the captain said, 'air carrier X, negative. We had a wind shift on short final and were not stabilized, and therefore went around.' we were given a turn to 090 degree heading. ATC again asked, 'air carrier X do you need assistance?' this was very distracting, and both pilots looked down to verify that the captain was in fact transmitting on VHF #1. The captain said, 'for the 3RD time, no. Air carrier X does not need assistance.' at that same time we received a TCASII RA for 'monitor vertical speed' requiring approximately a 3000+ FPM climb. After the captain's last transmission we were told that there was also an air carrier Y on frequency. The captain had been looking for traffic during entire go around procedure and finally saw an air carrier Y approximately 100 yds off our left wing. We received the 'clear of conflict' announcement shortly. After analyzing what had happened, we felt like it was the 'perfect storm' for a much more serious situation. During our go around an air carrier Y was taking off on runway 7L. ATC was surprised at our go around, although less so when the 2 aircraft who landed behind us reported an airspeed loss of 10 KTS at 100 ft on short final for runway 7R. Initially, both aircraft were maintaining runway heading. We believe that when we were assigned the 090 degree heading that air carrier Y also turned to the 090 degree heading. We do not believe that the air carrier Y aircraft saw us, at least until the TCASII RA. It is likely that they were unaware, as we were, that there was another 'air carrier X' call sign on frequency. Although ATC never said anything about a loss of separation, we believe that we were definitely too close to the air carrier Y. We returned for a landing on runway 7R that was uneventful.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 CREW LNDG LAS ON RWY 4R INITIATES A GAR AS A RESULT OF NOT BEING STABILIZED BECAUSE OF A STRONG TAILWIND.

Narrative: GAR EXECUTED AFTER VISUAL APCH TO RWY 7R, WHEN NOT STABILIZED BY 500 FT AGL DUE TO VERY STRONG TAILWIND (40 KTS AT 4000 FT AGL, DECREASING TO 14 KTS SHORT FINAL) WITH SURFACE WINDS AT 120 DEGS/10 KTS. DURING INITIAL PHASE OF GAR, WHEN STILL ABOVE CONCRETE RECEIVED 'TFC' TCASII ADVISORY. UPON CLBOUT, ATC QUERIED, 'ACR X, DO YOU NEED ASSISTANCE?' THE CAPT RESPONDED, 'NEGATIVE.' WE RECEIVED A SECOND 'TFC' TCASII ADVISORY. ATC AGAIN QUERIED, 'ACR X, DO YOU NEED ASSISTANCE?' THE CAPT SAID, 'ACR X, NEGATIVE. WE HAD A WIND SHIFT ON SHORT FINAL AND WERE NOT STABILIZED, AND THEREFORE WENT AROUND.' WE WERE GIVEN A TURN TO 090 DEG HDG. ATC AGAIN ASKED, 'ACR X DO YOU NEED ASSISTANCE?' THIS WAS VERY DISTRACTING, AND BOTH PLTS LOOKED DOWN TO VERIFY THAT THE CAPT WAS IN FACT XMITTING ON VHF #1. THE CAPT SAID, 'FOR THE 3RD TIME, NO. ACR X DOES NOT NEED ASSISTANCE.' AT THAT SAME TIME WE RECEIVED A TCASII RA FOR 'MONITOR VERT SPD' REQUIRING APPROX A 3000+ FPM CLB. AFTER THE CAPT'S LAST XMISSION WE WERE TOLD THAT THERE WAS ALSO AN ACR Y ON FREQ. THE CAPT HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR TFC DURING ENTIRE GAR PROC AND FINALLY SAW AN ACR Y APPROX 100 YDS OFF OUR L WING. WE RECEIVED THE 'CLR OF CONFLICT' ANNOUNCEMENT SHORTLY. AFTER ANALYZING WHAT HAD HAPPENED, WE FELT LIKE IT WAS THE 'PERFECT STORM' FOR A MUCH MORE SERIOUS SIT. DURING OUR GAR AN ACR Y WAS TAKING OFF ON RWY 7L. ATC WAS SURPRISED AT OUR GAR, ALTHOUGH LESS SO WHEN THE 2 ACFT WHO LANDED BEHIND US RPTED AN AIRSPD LOSS OF 10 KTS AT 100 FT ON SHORT FINAL FOR RWY 7R. INITIALLY, BOTH ACFT WERE MAINTAINING RWY HDG. WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE WERE ASSIGNED THE 090 DEG HDG THAT ACR Y ALSO TURNED TO THE 090 DEG HDG. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ACR Y ACFT SAW US, AT LEAST UNTIL THE TCASII RA. IT IS LIKELY THAT THEY WERE UNAWARE, AS WE WERE, THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER 'ACR X' CALL SIGN ON FREQ. ALTHOUGH ATC NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A LOSS OF SEPARATION, WE BELIEVE THAT WE WERE DEFINITELY TOO CLOSE TO THE ACR Y. WE RETURNED FOR A LNDG ON RWY 7R THAT WAS UNEVENTFUL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.