Narrative:

We were flying to phl with a clearance for a visual approach to runway 35. As we began our approach; the tower told us to square our base to final so as to land after an airbus on visual approach to runway 27R; which intersects runway 35 at the touchdown zone. On our base to final segment turn; we saw the runway 27R airbus. The spacing did not look good. Tower asked us to slow to final approach speed and s-turn as necessary to accommodate the landing airbus. We were in final approach confign and s-turing at 500 ft MSL. The spacing still did not look acceptable; so tower requested us to 'go around' at the same time we decided to also. We had not briefed or reviewed our go around procedures or possible plan. When we declared our go around; tower did not immediately specify a heading or altitude. When I prompted tower; they assigned 1500 ft MSL and asked us if we could see and fly a right downwind approach to runway 26. We said yes and were cleared to visual runway 26 and asked to turn downwind as soon as we could and to watch for landing traffic over the river for runway 27R. The missed approach was not executed very fluidly and the setup and approach to runway 26 was rushed. As a result; we rolled out on final below the ILS runway 26 GS and relatively near an overhead crane in the philly shipyard. On short final; the GPWS sounded; but we had the aircraft under control and in fine shape for no incident landing and rollout. To do this again; I would break off the runway 35 approach earlier and set up more correctly for runway 26 without rushing. CRM was lacking in this scenario.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB170 FLT CREW EXECUTES MISSED APCH AT PHL DUE TO TFC CONFLICT ON INTERSECTING RWY. RUSHED PROCS AND RWY CHANGE RESULT IN UNSTABILIZED APCH.

Narrative: WE WERE FLYING TO PHL WITH A CLRNC FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 35. AS WE BEGAN OUR APCH; THE TWR TOLD US TO SQUARE OUR BASE TO FINAL SO AS TO LAND AFTER AN AIRBUS ON VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27R; WHICH INTERSECTS RWY 35 AT THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE. ON OUR BASE TO FINAL SEGMENT TURN; WE SAW THE RWY 27R AIRBUS. THE SPACING DID NOT LOOK GOOD. TWR ASKED US TO SLOW TO FINAL APCH SPD AND S-TURN AS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE LNDG AIRBUS. WE WERE IN FINAL APCH CONFIGN AND S-TURING AT 500 FT MSL. THE SPACING STILL DID NOT LOOK ACCEPTABLE; SO TWR REQUESTED US TO 'GO AROUND' AT THE SAME TIME WE DECIDED TO ALSO. WE HAD NOT BRIEFED OR REVIEWED OUR GAR PROCS OR POSSIBLE PLAN. WHEN WE DECLARED OUR GAR; TWR DID NOT IMMEDIATELY SPECIFY A HDG OR ALT. WHEN I PROMPTED TWR; THEY ASSIGNED 1500 FT MSL AND ASKED US IF WE COULD SEE AND FLY A R DOWNWIND APCH TO RWY 26. WE SAID YES AND WERE CLRED TO VISUAL RWY 26 AND ASKED TO TURN DOWNWIND AS SOON AS WE COULD AND TO WATCH FOR LNDG TFC OVER THE RIVER FOR RWY 27R. THE MISSED APCH WAS NOT EXECUTED VERY FLUIDLY AND THE SETUP AND APCH TO RWY 26 WAS RUSHED. AS A RESULT; WE ROLLED OUT ON FINAL BELOW THE ILS RWY 26 GS AND RELATIVELY NEAR AN OVERHEAD CRANE IN THE PHILLY SHIPYARD. ON SHORT FINAL; THE GPWS SOUNDED; BUT WE HAD THE ACFT UNDER CTL AND IN FINE SHAPE FOR NO INCIDENT LNDG AND ROLLOUT. TO DO THIS AGAIN; I WOULD BREAK OFF THE RWY 35 APCH EARLIER AND SET UP MORE CORRECTLY FOR RWY 26 WITHOUT RUSHING. CRM WAS LACKING IN THIS SCENARIO.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.