Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MDW
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Airport; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At BANER for ILS 4R to MDW; weather ahead just off final course. MDW Tower said heavy rain and last one through had only light to moderate turbulence. Shortly after; an aircraft six miles ahead said plus/minus 25 knots; so Tower broke us off before we encountered any bad turbulence; NO wind shear advisories. ATC then started vectoring us for ILS 31C. We checked the weather again with ATC and verified landing data was good to go. On final (at about GLEAM) note we have 20-knot tailwind. We confirmed with Tower field conditions (330/9) and five to six miles visibility. ATC asked us to keep 170 until RUNTS; in retrospect; should have told him we needed to configure earlier due to tailwind. Continued in; could see the ground but there was a cloud layer blocking the field. We were configured; but tailwind caused it to take more time than normal; at 1000 ft met parameters; but speed almost immediately came back up; at 900 AGL FO said he was going around. I said I could see the field and noticed he had pulled the nose up and kicked the autopilot to CWS (Control Wheel Steering); he said he couldn't see the field and we called missed approach before 800 AGL.I called Tower and reported missed approach. We started missed approach and let the pitch attitude get too high which led to the airspeed getting low. Twenty degrees nose up was highest I noticed; and we were immediately correcting. We did get one Airspeed Low advisory; but NO Buffett and NO stall warning. During that period we asked Tower what altitude he wanted; he said 2000. Well we were already at 2200; so we had missed our mark. He noticed and then said 2500. We got to 2600 then corrected to 2500. No windshear warnings or storm predictions were on our radar but there was medium rain and it was kind of bumpy during this evolution.After missed approach; we were then vectored back for ILS 4R Approach. On a modified downwind we were being vectored around storm clouds heading about 180 when we got a plus 25 to 30 increase in airspeed then a 15-20 decrease. We were clear of clouds and 6 NM from storm depiction on the radar. It originally seemed to be a good heading. We must have gotten some blow off. Again; we never did get any windshear advisories or caution. We continued the vector for ILS 4R to full stop. We reviewed and talked about the importance of missed approach procedures and call outs and verifications. We also talked about tailwinds on approach coupled with ATC speed requests: I wish I would have just said no.


Second narrative: This event started with an aborted approach to 04R. The preceding aircraft reported airspeed fluctuations of plus/minus 25 KIAS and moderate turbulence. Approach Control broke us off the approach and gave us vectors for the ILS 31C. We had data for the runway and quickly briefed the approach while vectoring around the thunderstorm to the south of the field. While intercepting the Localizer; the PM rightly pointed out that we had a 20 plus knot tailwind and that we would need to configure appropriately to account for the tailwind then ensure that we were not out of limits on the landing. We did configure early while complying with the speed restrictions to the marker given by approach control. After GS intercept; zeroes were set in the altitude window and we slowed and configured at flaps 40 for the landing. The tailwind did not decrease during this and the aircraft continued to have difficulty slowing to target airspeed. At 1000 AGL; I made the required call outs with speed and sink rate. At the 1000 AGL point; the aircraft was within operational limits; but then nosed down to maintain the glideslope and the speed began to increase rapidly towards flaps 40 limiting speed. The sink rate also increased beyond 1000 fpm and the autothrottles were back at approach idle. In order to avoid a flap overspend; at 800 AGL; I was forced to pull the nose up (we were flying an autopilot coupled approach at this point) and the pitch/roll modes went to CWS (Control Wheel Steering). We quickly went well above the glideslope and I made the decision to go around. Simultaneously while I was announcing my decision to go around; the PM was stating that he saw the runway. I was unable to acquire the field immediately and felt that we would not be in a safe position to land particularly on a wet runway with erratic wind conditions. I pressed the TO/GA button once and directed the go around. The autothrottles advanced the throttles to go around thrust and I began to follow the flight directors. During the ensuing rapid series of radio calls and call outs; we quickly went through the missed approach altitude of 2;100 MSL. The distraction of Tower rapidly giving us a turn and an altitude BELOW what we were already climbing through led to a slow speed nose high condition; which forced me to push the throttles up even more further exacerbating the nose up condition. I managed to get the nose back down to level flight at approximately 2;600 MSL and at that point Tower told us to just maintain 2500. They had previously assigned 2000 and exhorted us to 'maintain 2000' when they saw we were above that. During the sequence of events which lasted just a few seconds; I did make the go-around power call (the autothrottles accomplished that action); the flaps 15 callout twice (because Tower was giving us climbout instructions during the first callout); but never had a chance to make the 'set missed approach altitude' call out because we were already wrestling with a nose up condition before we could even make the call.In hindsight; we were probably at approximately 1500 MSL when we initiated the go around; so bringing the power up to even reduced go-around thrust and following the flight directors for even a moment was too aggressive for the limited amount of climb needed to follow the published missed approach procedure; much less the lower altitude assigned by Tower. After recovering the aircraft and getting reconfigured and on vectors; Approach Control vectored us back to an ILS on Runway 04R. During this vectoring; we encountered airspeed fluctuations due to thunderstorm blow off of plus 40 to minus 20 KIAS. We successfully completed the ILS to 04R without incident to a full stop landing. Up until the go-around; I felt that procedurally the PM and I were functioning effectively and above all safely. However; I do feel that there is a major issue with our procedures when flying an ILS coupled approach. I fail to understand why we set zeroes in the altitude window at GS intercept in a newer aircraft. This adds complexity to the go-around procedure which is just not necessary. If the missed approach altitude is set after glideslope intercept; it eliminates a callout during the go-around at a critical phase of flight; and would have eliminated this altitude deviation because the flight directors should have immediately directed a level off at the missed approach altitude. I recommend an immediate change to this procedure.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported being broken off the approach by ATC due to windshear reported by the aircraft ahead. The next approach resulted in a missed approach due to strong tail winds and an unstable approach. The missed approach altitude was overshot and the airspeed was allowed to get low before recovering to normal.