Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Executing FLIPR4 arrival to LOC RWY 9; there were large thunderstorms approaching MIA from the west.  With heavy arrival traffic; the controllers were unable to route arrivals to completely avoid the weather.  Coming in on final; we had to fly through very heavy rain and turbulence approaching INESS. Out of concern for windshear; the FO attempted to maintain extra speed and as clean a configuration as possible; with which judgement I concurred. ATC was assigning the airspeeds; as traffic was spaced closely.  We planned flaps 30; because it had appeared from the radar that the runway would be wet. We approached 1500 MSL and INESS with 150 KIAS assigned; flaps 20; and gear up.  At this point we came out of the rain; and had good visual conditions for landing; and were lined up on final and on the glideslope according the PAPIs.  The FO called for gear down and flaps 25; but I had to wait for flaps 25 until the gear showed down.  With the gear down; selected flaps 25; but we experienced a windshear which raised the IAS above the 162 maximum for flaps 30.  The FO took maneuvering action to reduce; so we could select 30; but by this time we were below 1000 AGL.  With the new requirement to not complete any of the last 3 items of the landing checklist before final flaps; the checklist also had to be completed below 1000 feet.  I made the command decision; that with the hazardous weather conditions (a major thunderstorm minutes from the airport; with others in the area); a go-around would be more dangerous than continuing the approach; as we were on centerline; on glidepath; and correcting to approach speed; in visual conditions with a 13;000 foot runway in sight; so we proceeded to a normal landing and rollout.This would have been much easier; had the ILS to runway 9 been active; instead of trying to comply with the LOC only approach.  The LOC only approach puts the aircraft above optimum glidepath at INESS; making speed reduction more difficult on the steeper path required after INESS.  As it was; when we got into visual conditions; we were able to use the PAPIs for glidepath guidance; which worked out ok.  Had we not achieved visual conditions before 1000 AGL; a go-around back into the hazardous weather would have been unavoidable.  I would suggest that MIA airport do what is necessary to get the full ILS back in operation.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reports having to penetrate heavy rain and turbulence while conducting a localizer only approach. Due to gusty wind conditions the final flap selection was delayed until the indicated airspeed permitted; resulting in the final configuration not being achieved prior to 1000 feet AGL. The captain evaluated landing versus going around in increasingly hazardous weather conditions and elected to land.