Narrative:

During our arrival to phx; we were told to expect runway 26 for landing. After changing to another frequency we were told to now expect runway 8. On the approach to runway 8 the surface winds were above tailwind (approximately 15 KTS) limits and a missed approach was initiated. We climbed to 4000 ft and turned to the north. Then we were climbed to 6000 ft. We were sent right back in to runway 26 but due to poor vectoring and a tailwind on final we were too high and fast and went around again. We again were climbed to 4000 ft; then to 6000 ft; then to 7000 ft. Passing 6200 ft the controller changed his mind and sent us back to 6000 ft. We were handed off in the descent to 6000 ft. Numerous windshear warnings on final were reported by ground equipment thus we delayed our approach. The third approach was completed by landing on runway 26. After reaching the gate ATC called the captain and spoke with him regarding the events. She told the captain that we never climbed to 6000 ft (at least right away) after the first missed approach. As we did two missed approaches and were climbed and descended to 4000 ft and 6000 ft so many times we could not recall the event. The second event in question was the climb to 7000 ft. She told us we climbed through 6000 feet. We told her that we had been issued a climb to 7000 feet then back to 6000 ft and then handed off. Upon checking in with the new controller I advised him we were descending back to 6000 ft. This was per the previous controller's instructions. The airport changed directions into a tailwind situation which caused many airplanes to not be able to continue with a landing. The controllers appeared to be confused as to what the airport was going to do next; thus were also very busy. The crew was busy rebriefing and running checklists so it could be possible we missed a radio call.supplemental information from reporter 745246: in the confusion of ATC's indecisiveness and two go-arounds; we received numerous clearances and windshear advisories; we were busy. I will say that if we didn't comply; it wasn't on purpose. And it wasn't followed by any urgency on the part of a controller. Also; we never received any warning from the egpws system regarding a terrain threat and we were VMC the entire time. To avoid this from happening again; I would recommend that ATC evaluate winds aloft as well as surface winds when making a decision to change runways. Vectors given to accomplish a subsequent approach should be coupled with the controller's plan for the aircraft. This would allow the crew to plan accordingly so as to be stabilized during the approach. Turning an airplane toward final with a large tailwind and not much distance is only asking for a go around. Also; if an aircraft doesn't respond to a clearance; I would recommend repeating it until the aircraft complies to avoid a controlled flight into terrain accident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-700 CREW REPORTS TWO GO AROUNDS IN WINDSHEAR CONDITIONS WITH RWY CHANGES AND CONFLICTING ALT CLEARANCES AT PHX.

Narrative: DURING OUR ARRIVAL TO PHX; WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 26 FOR LANDING. AFTER CHANGING TO ANOTHER FREQUENCY WE WERE TOLD TO NOW EXPECT RWY 8. ON THE APPROACH TO RWY 8 THE SURFACE WINDS WERE ABOVE TAILWIND (APPROX 15 KTS) LIMITS AND A MISSED APPROACH WAS INITIATED. WE CLIMBED TO 4000 FT AND TURNED TO THE NORTH. THEN WE WERE CLIMBED TO 6000 FT. WE WERE SENT RIGHT BACK IN TO RWY 26 BUT DUE TO POOR VECTORING AND A TAILWIND ON FINAL WE WERE TOO HIGH AND FAST AND WENT AROUND AGAIN. WE AGAIN WERE CLIMBED TO 4000 FT; THEN TO 6000 FT; THEN TO 7000 FT. PASSING 6200 FT THE CONTROLLER CHANGED HIS MIND AND SENT US BACK TO 6000 FT. WE WERE HANDED OFF IN THE DESCENT TO 6000 FT. NUMEROUS WINDSHEAR WARNINGS ON FINAL WERE REPORTED BY GROUND EQUIPMENT THUS WE DELAYED OUR APPROACH. THE THIRD APPROACH WAS COMPLETED BY LANDING ON RWY 26. AFTER REACHING THE GATE ATC CALLED THE CAPTAIN AND SPOKE WITH HIM REGARDING THE EVENTS. SHE TOLD THE CAPTAIN THAT WE NEVER CLIMBED TO 6000 FT (AT LEAST RIGHT AWAY) AFTER THE FIRST MISSED APPROACH. AS WE DID TWO MISSED APPROACHES AND WERE CLIMBED AND DESCENDED TO 4000 FT AND 6000 FT SO MANY TIMES WE COULD NOT RECALL THE EVENT. THE SECOND EVENT IN QUESTION WAS THE CLIMB TO 7000 FT. SHE TOLD US WE CLIMBED THROUGH 6000 FEET. WE TOLD HER THAT WE HAD BEEN ISSUED A CLIMB TO 7000 FEET THEN BACK TO 6000 FT AND THEN HANDED OFF. UPON CHECKING IN WITH THE NEW CONTROLLER I ADVISED HIM WE WERE DESCENDING BACK TO 6000 FT. THIS WAS PER THE PREVIOUS CONTROLLER'S INSTRUCTIONS. THE AIRPORT CHANGED DIRECTIONS INTO A TAILWIND SITUATION WHICH CAUSED MANY AIRPLANES TO NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITH A LANDING. THE CONTROLLERS APPEARED TO BE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THE AIRPORT WAS GOING TO DO NEXT; THUS WERE ALSO VERY BUSY. THE CREW WAS BUSY REBRIEFING AND RUNNING CHECKLISTS SO IT COULD BE POSSIBLE WE MISSED A RADIO CALL.SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM RPTR 745246: IN THE CONFUSION OF ATC'S INDECISIVENESS AND TWO GO-AROUNDS; WE RECEIVED NUMEROUS CLEARANCES AND WINDSHEAR ADVISORIES; WE WERE BUSY. I WILL SAY THAT IF WE DIDN'T COMPLY; IT WASN'T ON PURPOSE. AND IT WASN'T FOLLOWED BY ANY URGENCY ON THE PART OF A CONTROLLER. ALSO; WE NEVER RECEIVED ANY WARNING FROM THE EGPWS SYSTEM REGARDING A TERRAIN THREAT AND WE WERE VMC THE ENTIRE TIME. TO AVOID THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN; I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT ATC EVALUATE WINDS ALOFT AS WELL AS SURFACE WINDS WHEN MAKING A DECISION TO CHANGE RUNWAYS. VECTORS GIVEN TO ACCOMPLISH A SUBSEQUENT APPROACH SHOULD BE COUPLED WITH THE CONTROLLER'S PLAN FOR THE AIRCRAFT. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE CREW TO PLAN ACCORDINGLY SO AS TO BE STABILIZED DURING THE APPROACH. TURNING AN AIRPLANE TOWARD FINAL WITH A LARGE TAILWIND AND NOT MUCH DISTANCE IS ONLY ASKING FOR A GO AROUND. ALSO; IF AN AIRCRAFT DOESN'T RESPOND TO A CLEARANCE; I WOULD RECOMMEND REPEATING IT UNTIL THE AIRCRAFT COMPLIES TO AVOID A CONTROLLED FLIGHT INTO TERRAIN ACCIDENT.

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.