Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Other unknown
Operating under: Other unknown
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Other unknown
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: As our wind speed and direction reporting determines which type of approach should be flown (AOM 3.2.7); we used the advertised ATIS of LIMA (which indicated ILS XX was acceptable; if I recall correctly; landing data only showed a one (1) or two (2) knot tailwind when we used LIMA; wind 290/06). When we ran data for landing; the latest ATIS was (time); and we subsequently broke off of the RNAV5 Arrival approaching way point ZZZZZ for severe weather avoidance. We were set up for a left downwind for Runway XX (number five in the stack). We were approaching ZZZZZ1 on Runway XX shortly after the normal ATIS changeover. As we were cleared for the ILS XX; we heard preceding aircraft went around (I quickly downloaded the current ATIS to see if there was a SPECIAL).I discovered ATIS NOVEMBER was current (without being advised by the tower or approach control). I queried APP CTRL (before tower hand off) as to why Runway XX is the preferred runway; with an advertised tailwind being observed at the surface? Approach Control said 'We're keeping you on Runway XX for the sequence (or words to that effect); then he immediately handed us off to the Tower. I ran new landing data; then queried the Tower why they're landing Runway XX when ATIS NOVEMBER is advertising Runway XXR? He had no good reason. Landing data propagated around 800 feet AGL; and data showed Runway XX was all dashed lines; and we did not have the landing performance required; so I told the Tower we were going around. The Tower then asked if we were unstable on the approach as being the reason for the go-around. I said; 'No. The reason was you're landing aircraft on a runway not advertised as the landing runway; due to the wind being beyond our limits.' This wasn't a subtle wind change at the last minute; as we reported information LIMA (and we weren't corrected -- as LIMA was the current ATIS); but information MIKE had apparently occurred already; then information NOVEMBER was advertising runway XXR while on approach for Runway XX; and them knowing this; they continued to allow an unsafe operation to continue; to the extent; as we learned later; there wasn't just one go-around before ours; but three!




Synopsis: Medium Large Transport Captain reported executing a Go Around after encountering an out of limits tailwind on approach.