Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was observing from the jumpseat on a visual approach to runway 27R. The crew was asked by tower to make an S turn to the left to provide more space for crossing traffic landing runway 35 and was cleared to land. While conducting the S turn the aircraft became too high on the glide slope and a go around was executed. The tower told our flight to climb to 2000 ft runway heading. Apparently the traffic landing 35 also executed a go around the same time because they had not received a landing clearance. The tower told the other aircraft to fly runway heading and climb to 2000 ft as well. I did not notice any TA or RA warnings from the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System).High position on the glideslope during S turn maneuver resulting in a crew initiated go around. In my opinion there should be instructions issued to aircraft on converging visual approaches ahead of time in the event of a go around that will adequately provide separation should both aircraft execute a go around.


Second narrative: Go around for unstable approach. We had 4 white lights on the PAPI at 500 ft. During the approach to 27R; tower was concerned about spacing and asked us to do a S-turn at about 1400 ft AGL. We flew the S-turn; but ended up high on final after completing the turn. A descent greater than 1000 would have been needed to return us to the proper glidepath. We still had 4 white lights on the PAPI at 500 AGL so a go around was initiated. Tower asked us to call when on the ground. Initially; I think they thought we were going around due to the spacing issue but the problem was the unstable approach.Tower's concern was that the go around on 27R requires immediate instructions to the aircraft to separate them from departures off of 27L. Due to our original spacing issues; an aircraft landing on 35 was told to be ready for a go-around and was not given landing clearance. When we went around; tower was required to give us instructions. The aircraft landing on 35 then had to go-around since they didn't get their landing clearance. If I had stayed on the glidepath during the S-turn; the approach would have been stable and the landing would have been successful.


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported they were issued the same altitude going around as the traffic also going around on a crossing runway at PHL.