Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01; Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During our flight into Denver we experienced issues with high winds that made for very difficult circumstances landing at the airport. Prior to our descent into Denver we pulled an ATIS for Denver. The ATIS was reporting microburst advisories and wind shear advisories in effect. I had seen these in the past due to winds and convective activity so I was concerned that the situation in Denver was worsening. I sent a message to dispatch to see if there was weather building in the area. The dispatcher replied that there was not. The dispatcher then sent a message a few minutes later 'YA GUSTY WINDS...CROSSWIND COMPONENT IS 13 KNOTS FOR THE 16S GAVE EXTRA CONT FOR WINDS'. The dispatcher also said that they would keep an eye on Denver and let us know if anything changed. I was still concerned that we could potentially encounter wind shear on our approach into Denver; but felt better that the dispatcher was checking on the status of the airport. Upon texting with dispatch prior to our descent they told us that everyone was getting in and landing on the 16s; and that the cross wind would be 13 knots. Upon approach to Denver we were told that microburst advisories were in effect with possible loss of 25 knots. We ran our approach checklists and were vectored on to runway 16L for a visual approach; backed up with the ILS. There was another airplane on approach to that runway; they landed and did not report any wind shear. As we were descending on the approach and at about 1500 feet tower issued a wind shear alert. We initiated a go around and started climbing out. We were then vectored around for another approach. While being vectored I texted dispatch and told them that I need to know other options. While we waited to hear from dispatch we were vectored in for another approach. Several minutes went by before we heard back from dispatch. The message from them was 'Looks like you're on final; and everyone else is landing.' That is not quoted verbatim what the message said; as I don't remember exactly. I do know that I asked for options and what I got back was a message that had no additional information--no alternative options to landing in Denver. This time we were given the visual approach to 16L; there were no wind shear alerts or microburst alerts for the runway when initiating the approach. Another aircraft had actually just landed and did not advise of any wind shear. We commenced the approach. Again at approximately 1500 feet we received another wind shear alert from tower. We initiated the go around and started climbing out. Again we were vectored for another approach to runway 16L. It should be noted that while we were doing approaches to runway 16L; all the other runways were getting alerts as well. I asked about 16R; and 17R; both had the same wind shear alerts. Tower let us know that 16L alerts were the least frequent. As we were proceeding inbound on approach for 16L they issued a microburst alert and a wind shear alert. We again commenced a go around; and again asked ATC about other options. Runway 26 which had previously been outside of our crosswind limitations was still outside of our limitations but steady around 33 knots. [Another aircraft] who was behind us on the last of our approaches to 16L also asked for runway 26. We set up for the approach and were vectored for the visual. At this point during the flight our fuel was around 2750. [Alternate] was no longer a viable option due to fuel requirements and the unknowns about what exactly the weather was doing there.As we were being vectored to the visual our fuel was becoming a more severe issue. I decided to [advise] ATC for low fuel and crosswinds out of limits for the airplane. They gave us the option of going to ZZZ. I was unfamiliar with that airport and whether or not it had acceptable safety systems in place for wind shear and microburst alerting; so decided to consider a landing there; but we still had the fuel to continue to Denver's runway 26.When we were given clearance to land the winds tower reported were 190 at 30 knots. I knew this was very close to our limitation; possibly just outside of it; but I was much more comfortable with a steady 30 knot crosswind than gusty winds and possible wind shear. I am familiar with how the limitation is worded in our Aircraft Operations Manual (AOM); specifically; it says that it is demonstrated and not considered limiting. After [the other aircraft] landed tower advised they had a 'smooth ride down to 26.' At 1000 feet we were configured and on speed and the airplane was performing very well. There was a substantial crab angle; as we did have 30 knots of crosswind; but I believe the winds decreased slightly when we landed; as the landing was a pretty normal crosswind landing. This leads me to believe that the landing may have actually occurred within our limitation. After we landed we taxied clear of the runway; and to the gate.There are some points that I think are important to make; and some decisions that I think could have been different; though the circumstances were very difficult and I'm not sure what could have been differently. Leaving [departure airport] we were given 753 pounds of contingency fuel. This put our planned landing fuel into Denver at 3703 pounds. The weather forecast for Denver was showing winds to be 240 at 24 gusting to 34. Having flown into Denver numerous times; I am familiar with the airport and the weather times often associated with it. The wind forecast seemed to me to be pretty common for the airport. It was well within limitations for landing on runway 16L; and would also be a non-issue for landing on runway 26.Because; of the potential wind shear into Denver; the First Officer (FO) and I discussed and briefed the wind shear recovery technique as described in the AOM. We also agreed not to attempt an approach if there was a wind shear alert active. I referenced the AOM; as well as the Summer Operations guide; and the Hazardous Weather Decision Aid so that information would be fresh in my mind in the case we encountered any wind shear on approach.The Hazardous Weather Decision Aid; I found to be quite helpful; though some of the information a little vague. It specifically mentioned microburst advisories and alerts and assessed the risk associated with proceeding to an airport with such advisories. I found the risk during our arrival to be medium; as these advisories were in effect. High risk would have included any PIREP of a wind shift greater than 15 knots as well as many other bullet points; the rest of which didn't apply; but still decided to proceed under the high risk guidance. However; at no point did I receive a pilot report from previously landing pilots that they had any loss of airspeed. I also briefed that the flight crew actions for Runway specific wind shear or microburst alert would be that no takeoffs or landings could be attempted to that specific runway.I would like to know more about what can be done in this type of situation; and what can be done to avoid it. If a pilot finds himself in the situation again; what would the company consider the safest course of action? I would like to see more guidance on how to deal with wind shear; what we can and cannot do; and specific time limits before attempting approaches. The hazardous weather decision guide has a note that wind shear and Microburst Alerts are for 1 minute after ATC report then becomes an advisory. I would like to know more about this specifically.It may be a good idea to issue alternate airports for instances when the destination is going to have wind shear or microburst advisories in effect.We need better communication between pilot and dispatch. I don't recall exactly what was in the messages I sent to dispatch; but at one point I did ask for other options. My assumption would be that dispatch would check weather; call the alternate tower and ask if they were having wind shear issuesthen send me weather and NOTAMs for that alternate with a message that reads something like 'Go to alternate'. Unfortunately the response I received was something like 'everybody else is landing.' My frustration is that I asked for help and didn't get any. I didn't have time for discussion; I just needed an out right then and there.Also; clarification on our crosswind 'limitation' would be helpful. Perhaps a safer course of action on arrival into Denver would have been an approach to runway 26 with the slightly stronger crosswind than our 'limit.'




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported multiple go-arounds due to wind shear alerts from ATC at DEN; he finally decided to land on runway 26 with a crosswind very close to limits.