Narrative:

On our flight to atl; as we were going through FL200 on the erlin 5 arrival; atlanta center changed our arrival to the herko 2 arrival due to weather in the area. The herko 2 was put into the FMS and verified. At about this time we were switched to atlanta approach and were assigned ILS prm 9R. We had been set up for 8L as it was the most logical choice of runway as we were approaching atlanta from the north (our choices in approaches were 8L; 9R; and 10). My first officer asked if we could get 8L instead; but we were refused. So; I asked my first officer to set up for 9R and brief it for me. At the same time; we encountered turbulence and were trying to get vectors around the many cells in the area. Changing to the herko 2 arrival did not help in getting around the weather. The first officer and I were getting very saturated with the changes in arrivals; approaches; and trying to get vectors around the weather. We were finally cleared for the ILS prm 9R; maintain 7000 ft until vinii. During this time; we were asked if we were lined up with 9R. We were on the 9R localizer at the time; but the GS had not been captured. We verified the localizer ifun 108.9 again. We were on the correct approach. As we passed vinii; ATC canceled our approach and told us to descend to 6000 ft. He then recleared us. By this time we were high and could not recapture the glide slope. Although we had flaps 3 and put the gear down to help the decent; it did not help us in flying a stabilized approach and I made the decision to go missed. During this whole procedure we were monitoring 132.55 for any break out instructions. I believe that this frequency should be silent unless break out instructions are being given. However; we noticed a lot of talking on that frequency which added to the confusion. This is the third ILS prm approach I have done in atl and have noticed talking on the monitoring frequency that was not break out instructions. During the missed approach; as the flaps were transitioning from flap 2 to flap 1; the speed limitation for flap 2 was exceeded. We had the FAA on board during this flight and he asked me about the flap speed being exceeded and if we had a written procedure for checking the flaps. I said that we have limitations in our SOP and that we do not have a specific written procedure for exceeding limitations; however; we do write it in the maintenance logbook and call maintenance control; which I did; and the flaps were checked by maintenance. Maintenance then cleared the write up in accordance with their procedures. What I would do differently is to call off the approach sooner and ask for vectors to comeback around again to start the approach more stabilized. I also would not use toga for the go-around procedure at the altitude of around 2000ft; as that gives too much power and contributed to the over speed of the flaps.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An air carrier went around event due to unstabilized approach; resulting in a flap over speed. Weather and landing runway changes were listed as contributory factors.

Narrative: On our flight to ATL; as we were going through FL200 on the ERLIN 5 Arrival; Atlanta Center changed our arrival to the HERKO 2 Arrival due to weather in the area. The HERKO 2 was put into the FMS and verified. At about this time we were switched to Atlanta Approach and were assigned ILS PRM 9R. We had been set up for 8L as it was the most logical choice of runway as we were approaching Atlanta from the north (our choices in approaches were 8L; 9R; and 10). My first officer asked if we could get 8L instead; but we were refused. So; I asked my first officer to set up for 9R and brief it for me. At the same time; we encountered turbulence and were trying to get vectors around the many cells in the area. Changing to the HERKO 2 arrival did not help in getting around the weather. The First Officer and I were getting very saturated with the changes in arrivals; approaches; and trying to get vectors around the weather. We were finally cleared for the ILS PRM 9R; maintain 7000 FT until VINII. During this time; we were asked if we were lined up with 9R. We were on the 9R localizer at the time; but the GS had not been captured. We verified the localizer IFUN 108.9 again. We were on the correct approach. As we passed VINII; ATC canceled our approach and told us to descend to 6000 FT. He then recleared us. By this time we were high and could not recapture the glide slope. Although we had Flaps 3 and put the gear down to help the decent; it did not help us in flying a stabilized approach and I made the decision to go missed. During this whole procedure we were monitoring 132.55 for any break out instructions. I believe that this frequency should be silent unless break out instructions are being given. However; we noticed a lot of talking on that frequency which added to the confusion. This is the third ILS PRM approach I have done in ATL and have noticed talking on the monitoring frequency that was not break out instructions. During the missed approach; as the flaps were transitioning from Flap 2 to Flap 1; the speed limitation for Flap 2 was exceeded. We had the FAA on board during this flight and he asked me about the flap speed being exceeded and if we had a written procedure for checking the flaps. I said that we have limitations in our SOP and that we do not have a specific written procedure for exceeding limitations; however; we do write it in the maintenance logbook and call maintenance control; which I did; and the flaps were checked by maintenance. Maintenance then cleared the write up in accordance with their procedures. What I would do differently is to call off the approach sooner and ask for vectors to comeback around again to start the approach more stabilized. I also would not use TOGA for the go-around procedure at the altitude of around 2000ft; as that gives too much power and contributed to the over speed of the flaps.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.