Narrative:

The flight was normal to the bhm area. The bhm ATIS indicated winds from the south at 25 gusting to 40; rain; and tower visibility 4 miles. On the approach to runway 24 the autopilot was unable to cope with the winds and turbulence and kicked off. Tower reported wind and rain both increasing so with concerns about the gusting crosswind and the runway conditions we went around. On vectors for a second approach tower reported an aircraft had landed and that they had reported the turbulence died down close to the runway. I observed on the radar that the rain had also let up so we continued inbound for a second approach. I advised tower that if we had to go around again we would have to divert to our alternate. On a 2-3 mile final we encountered a shear with a 25 to 30 knot drop in airspeed and initiated another go around. We advised tower of our need to divert and were handed off to departure control. I advised them we needed to proceed to our alternate and I also declared minimal fuel. We had alternate fuel plus reserve at that time; but I was concerned about the distance to the alternate (200 plus miles); the increasing convective activity; and the expected need to avoid more weather enroute to the alternate. ATC then advised us that they did not believe we could proceed to our planned alternate because of a line of storms that we would probably not be able to penetrate or go around. I then asked ATC what airports looked reasonable to consider for the diversion and they suggested two airports. At this time I was able to contact dispatch and we agreed on a third airport as our new destination. At some point ATC had upgraded our status to an emergency and they advised us of that fact. We received clearance to the alternate; proceeded there and landed. Suggestions: I believe I should have been more proactive about checking the weather conditions at bhm while still enroute. The forecast showed the winds at 17 G25 down the runway for our arrival time; but they had not switched from the south winds forecast earlier; and they were much more severe (170 @25 g45). Communication with dispatch enroute could have made all of this go smoother. Although I would call minimal fuel again in a similar circumstance I did realize all of the attention that would generate.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A medium transport aircraft experienced a windshear with an airspeed loss on the second approach attempt. A go around was again executed and the flight diverted to an unplanned alternate with suitable weather considering the aircraft's minimum fuel state.

Narrative: The flight was normal to the BHM area. The BHM ATIS indicated winds from the south at 25 gusting to 40; rain; and Tower visibility 4 miles. On the approach to Runway 24 the autopilot was unable to cope with the winds and turbulence and kicked off. Tower reported wind and rain both increasing so with concerns about the gusting crosswind and the runway conditions we went around. On vectors for a second approach Tower reported an aircraft had landed and that they had reported the turbulence died down close to the runway. I observed on the radar that the rain had also let up so we continued inbound for a second approach. I advised Tower that if we had to go around again we would have to divert to our alternate. On a 2-3 mile final we encountered a shear with a 25 to 30 knot drop in airspeed and initiated another go around. We advised Tower of our need to divert and were handed off to Departure Control. I advised them we needed to proceed to our alternate and I also declared minimal fuel. We had alternate fuel plus reserve at that time; but I was concerned about the distance to the alternate (200 plus miles); the increasing convective activity; and the expected need to avoid more weather enroute to the alternate. ATC then advised us that they did not believe we could proceed to our planned alternate because of a line of storms that we would probably not be able to penetrate or go around. I then asked ATC what airports looked reasonable to consider for the diversion and they suggested two airports. At this time I was able to contact Dispatch and we agreed on a third airport as our new destination. At some point ATC had upgraded our status to an emergency and they advised us of that fact. We received clearance to the alternate; proceeded there and landed. Suggestions: I believe I should have been more proactive about checking the weather conditions at BHM while still enroute. The forecast showed the winds at 17 G25 down the runway for our arrival time; but they had not switched from the south winds forecast earlier; and they were much more severe (170 @25 g45). Communication with Dispatch enroute could have made all of this go smoother. Although I would call minimal fuel again in a similar circumstance I did realize all of the attention that would generate.

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.