Narrative:

Returning from the last leg of the long day; we had been watching the weather in for the last few hours with low ceilings and reduced visibility. The weather was reported by approach control as being a solid 200 ft overcast and RVR better than 6;000 ft for runway 18R. I was the flying pilot and made the decision to use the autoland CAT-3 since the solid bases were right at minimums for a CAT-1 approach. We advised the approach controller that we would be conducting an autoland and need the critical area protected. He advised us he would. We briefed the approach. ATC gave us final vectors and asked us to maintain 170 KTS to the final approach point. The first officer gave the great advice that I needed to be fully configured and at speed by 1;500 ft radio altimeter and I configured quickly. As the light weight aircraft did not decelerate fast enough I called for flaps 40 instead of 25 and slowed to approach speed. At approximately 1;700 ft MSL; the autoland disconnected and the aircraft rolled slightly left. I called out go around; selected to toga buttons and called for flaps 15. Our company policy on CAT-3 autoland requires a go around if the autoland disconnects anywhere other then on the runway during the roll out. We had a landing weight of 110;000 pounds and 43 degrees OAT and the aircraft performance with these parameters and go-around power is spectacular. The first officer made his first attempt to contact the tower on the missed approach and the tower did not respond. The tower then gave taxi instruction to an aircraft on the ground. The first officer then again called that we were on the missed approach and the tower transmitted 'who is that?' the first officer then again advised that we were on the missed approach. We were climbing at 4;200 ft per minute and full go around power and a missed approach altitude of 5;000 ft as prescribed on the commercial chart. We were slightly left of centerline as the first officer advised the tower again that we were on a missed approach. As we climbed; the tower asked us to track inbound on the localizer and maintain 2;000 ft. We had already passed 2;300 ft and were still climbing at a rate of 4;000 ft per minute. The first officer told the controller we had already passed 2;000 ft and would have to go back down to the altitude. The controller then asked us to just level off there at 3;000 ft. We overshot by about 200 ft and descended back down. I was contacted by the tower supervisor after landing to call the tower and advised that a possible pilot deviation for executing a missed approach into airspace above 3;000 ft MSL that they did not control. I would question why pilots have a missed approach altitude on our approach charts that we brief and arm the altitude on the flight management console that is not controlled and must be changed at a very inopportune time to a much lower altitude. The performance of lightweight; cold weather; full power aircraft requires some lead in time for an earlier altitude capture. Had the controller not been working other traffic on the radio that were already on the ground and with weather at the minimum for landing; he could have been more prepared of the inevitable go around from aircraft. Someone is always the first. Also; had the controller responded to our first call we could have had some lead in time before accelerating through his intended change of missed approach altitude. You cannot give a climb and maintain altitude that is already been exceeded by the climbing aircraft and must give a little lead in time to the aircraft before the altitude. Maybe if it was that important that the aircraft on approach not fly into the unknown 3;000 ft barrier to tower control; a charted change of missed approach altitude from 5;000 ft to 2;000 ft or 3;000 ft is in order. This conflict could also been prevented had the tower controller simply given the statement 'in the event of a missed approach climb to 3;000 ft.' I will also never accept a maintain airspeed to the final approach fix that exceeds my final approach speed in final configuration for CAT-3 operations. The aircraft does not have enough time to decelerate.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An MD80 crew executed a Go Around during a CATIII approach after the autopilot disconnected. During the Go Around; ATC did not respond quickly enough with a clearance and the rapidly climbing aircraft climbed through the cleared altitude.

Narrative: Returning from the last leg of the long day; we had been watching the weather in for the last few hours with low ceilings and reduced visibility. The weather was reported by Approach Control as being a solid 200 FT overcast and RVR better than 6;000 FT for Runway 18R. I was the flying pilot and made the decision to use the autoland CAT-3 since the solid bases were right at minimums for a CAT-1 Approach. We advised the Approach Controller that we would be conducting an autoland and need the critical area protected. He advised us he would. We briefed the approach. ATC gave us final vectors and asked us to maintain 170 KTS to the final approach point. The First Officer gave the great advice that I needed to be fully configured and at speed by 1;500 FT radio altimeter and I configured quickly. As the light weight aircraft did not decelerate fast enough I called for flaps 40 instead of 25 and slowed to approach speed. At approximately 1;700 FT MSL; the autoland disconnected and the aircraft rolled slightly left. I called out go around; selected to TOGA buttons and called for flaps 15. Our company policy on CAT-3 autoland requires a go around if the autoland disconnects anywhere other then on the runway during the roll out. We had a landing weight of 110;000 LBS and 43 degrees OAT and the aircraft performance with these parameters and go-around power is spectacular. The First Officer made his first attempt to contact the Tower on the missed approach and the Tower did not respond. The Tower then gave taxi instruction to an aircraft on the ground. The First Officer then again called that we were on the missed approach and the Tower transmitted 'who is that?' The First Officer then again advised that we were on the missed approach. We were climbing at 4;200 FT per minute and full go around power and a missed approach altitude of 5;000 FT as prescribed on the commercial chart. We were slightly left of centerline as the First Officer advised the Tower again that we were on a missed approach. As we climbed; the Tower asked us to track inbound on the localizer and maintain 2;000 FT. We had already passed 2;300 FT and were still climbing at a rate of 4;000 FT per minute. The First Officer told the Controller we had already passed 2;000 FT and would have to go back down to the altitude. The Controller then asked us to just level off there at 3;000 FT. We overshot by about 200 FT and descended back down. I was contacted by the Tower Supervisor after landing to call the Tower and advised that a possible pilot deviation for executing a missed approach into airspace above 3;000 FT MSL that they did not control. I would question why pilots have a missed approach altitude on our approach charts that we brief and arm the altitude on the flight management console that is not controlled and must be changed at a very inopportune time to a much lower altitude. The performance of lightweight; cold weather; full power aircraft requires some lead in time for an earlier altitude capture. Had the Controller not been working other traffic on the radio that were already on the ground and with weather at the minimum for landing; he could have been more prepared of the inevitable go around from aircraft. Someone is always the first. Also; had the Controller responded to our first call we could have had some lead in time before accelerating through his intended change of missed approach altitude. You cannot give a climb and maintain altitude that is already been exceeded by the climbing aircraft and must give a little lead in time to the aircraft before the altitude. Maybe if it was that important that the aircraft on approach not fly into the unknown 3;000 FT barrier to Tower Control; a charted change of missed approach altitude from 5;000 FT to 2;000 FT or 3;000 FT is in order. This conflict could also been prevented had the Tower Controller simply given the statement 'in the event of a missed approach climb to 3;000 FT.' I will also never accept a maintain airspeed to the final approach fix that exceeds my final approach speed in final configuration for CAT-3 operations. The aircraft does not have enough time to decelerate.

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.