Narrative:

We arrived anc after a duty day of 15 hours 10 minutes. I am filing this report because after landing (we flew two approaches) I was unsure we were stable at a thousand feet on the final approach. As you'll see from the text below it was a busy couple of approaches. The first approach was a visual with an RNAV backup since the ILS was out of service. On this approach we received several traffic callouts from ATC while on vectors and also received a TA on final due to a small aircraft that flew below our flight path. We did visually acquire that plane and continued the approach. ATC first directed us to keep our speed up; but then reversed that direction and asked us to slow as quickly as possible to our lowest approach speed. We switched from a planned flaps 35 approach to a flaps 50 approach and did our best to slow. ATC then cleared a flight to take off from runway 14. The flight was not quick enough; ATC canceled their takeoff clearance; and then directed us to go-around with almost immediate crosswind vectors.while on a tight downwind vector after the go-around; ATC asked us if we could make a short visual approach. We did so and made a continuous turn from downwind to base to final. In the process of doing that maneuver and trying to slow from around 200 KTS to flaps 50 approach speed; I am uncertain as to whether we were fully stabilized at 1000 ft. As the pilot flying from the left seat; I was intently focused on flying a safe and stable approach that brought me around to line up on the runway but I did not note with certainty that we flew through that thousand foot gate with fom parameters met. Looking back; I remember being a little faster in the turn than I wanted to be (partially due to FMS speed control dropping out for some reason); but at the time; I thought we were still above one thousand feet as I slowed the plane and called for the gear and the flaps and the landing checklist. As a crew; we felt safe throughout the approach and landing process. Landing and taxi to parking were uneventful. We could have been more conservative by not accepting the short approach request after the go around. We could've then flown a more standard visual or instrument approach and could have then had more time to confirm that we were indeed stable at one thousand feet.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: At the end of a long duty day a transpacific widebody flight crew had to make a go-around at ANC due to a traffic conflict and may not have satisfied company stabilized approach criteria on the subsequent visual; close in approach and landing.

Narrative: We arrived ANC after a duty day of 15 hours 10 minutes. I am filing this report because after landing (we flew two approaches) I was unsure we were stable at a thousand feet on the final approach. As you'll see from the text below it was a busy couple of approaches. The first approach was a visual with an RNAV backup since the ILS was out of service. On this approach we received several traffic callouts from ATC while on vectors and also received a TA on final due to a small aircraft that flew below our flight path. We did visually acquire that plane and continued the approach. ATC first directed us to keep our speed up; but then reversed that direction and asked us to slow as quickly as possible to our lowest approach speed. We switched from a planned flaps 35 approach to a flaps 50 approach and did our best to slow. ATC then cleared a flight to take off from Runway 14. The flight was not quick enough; ATC canceled their takeoff clearance; and then directed us to go-around with almost immediate crosswind vectors.While on a tight downwind vector after the go-around; ATC asked us if we could make a short visual approach. We did so and made a continuous turn from downwind to base to final. In the process of doing that maneuver and trying to slow from around 200 KTS to flaps 50 approach speed; I am uncertain as to whether we were fully stabilized at 1000 FT. As the pilot flying from the left seat; I was intently focused on flying a safe and stable approach that brought me around to line up on the runway but I did not note with certainty that we flew through that thousand foot gate with FOM parameters met. Looking back; I remember being a little faster in the turn than I wanted to be (partially due to FMS speed control dropping out for some reason); but at the time; I thought we were still above one thousand feet as I slowed the plane and called for the gear and the flaps and the landing checklist. As a crew; we felt safe throughout the approach and landing process. Landing and taxi to parking were uneventful. We could have been more conservative by not accepting the short approach request after the go around. We could've then flown a more standard visual or instrument approach and could have then had more time to confirm that we were indeed stable at one thousand feet.

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.