B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 183
Workload; Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Airport; Weather; Procedure
We dispatched to LAS to arrive with fuel 7.2. Gusty winds were forecast at LAS but fuel seemed to be sufficient.  The forecast did not require an alternate. Enroute; Dispatch advised us that blowing dust was reducing visibility to two miles which was supposed to end at the time of our arrival.  The sun was setting at our arrival and visibility was picking up as forecast.  We briefed and flew ILS 1L but were able to see the field from approximately four miles.  Gusty wind conditions were reported on the field but it was not until breaking out that we encountered the turbulence and fierce gusty winds.  After breaking out; we heard the aircraft in front of us go-around for windshear.  This was our first indication of a windshear threat.  We commenced a go-around on this first approach due to a strong side gust around 200 feet AGL which caused directional nose shift and a pitch up.  I started to do a normal go-around; retracting flaps to 15 as we climbed away but then the climb stalled and we went to emergency thrust and held pitch as necessary to climb to 6;000 feet MSL.  We never received a verbal warning from the GPWS.At this point the fuel totalizer read 5.3.  I sent a message to Dispatch for an alternate with our fuel state; expecting Nellis.  Instead he gave me Ontario with a burn of 3.2. This would've put us in Ontario with emergency fuel at 2.1.  I told him too far.While we waited for a response from Dispatch; ATC vectored us on a downwind and First Officer (FO) and I discussed our plans.  FO pulled up Nellis on the [charts] and it listed no approaches available.  We asked ATC if aircraft were landing at LAS and they said yes.  ATC advised we were number nine for the approach.  I declared minimum fuel and they began discussions with another Aircrew to work us ahead of them. Visibility was picking up and we could now see the field from 6;000 feet.  Based on this information we decided attempting another approach was our best option; as opposed to landing well below emergency fuel in ONT.  On base; Dispatch advised us that we could use St. George; with a burn of 2.3.  The FO was familiar with its location; and we discussed it as last resort after this attempt which was upon us.Final was similar to the first approach and very difficult; with airspeed plus or minus 15 and strong side-gusts; but glideslope steady.  Once again we received a side gust around 200 feet.  Normally this would again have meant a go-around.  I decided to work through it and accept a long landing; using emergency authority.  Fortunately we did not receive any more difficult gusts of wind and were able to smoothly land the aircraft between 3;000 feet and 4;000 feet down the runway.  We were able to brake normally and taxi clear at Taxiway N.  We arrived at the gate with fuel 4.4. Afterwards I contacted Dispatch and we had a discussion about the event.LAS is an airport with few alternate options when it comes to gusty winds in the region and the possibility of turbulence and windshear inhibiting landing. If winds exceed a certain predetermined amount; it would seem best to have a written Company policy of a required non-regional alternate and the safety of the matching fuel. LAS arrivals from the east also require a descent to the mid to low 20's from as far out as 200 miles.  We received a similar early descent; which caused a lower fuel state on final than planned.  This should be reflected in the flight plan. The severity of the turbulence and windshear affecting finals did not just occur with our arrival. From my perspective; Dispatch did not appear to be proactive but rather reactive. I think they could have sent warnings of the windshear threat and possible ensuing fuel issues before we encountered it ourselves.My initial thoughts when I saw the winds regarded the challenge; not the threat of multiple approaches and windshear. In the future I will be more proactive when it comes to fuel anytime I see high winds; especially in areas like LAS and DEN.
A B737 was dispatched to LAS and arrived to find gusty winds and dust. The crew executed a go-around on the first approach but with fuel considerations landed on the second approach by flying beneath the gusts near the surface.