Narrative:

While I have flown into geg before; it is not an airport that I see on a regular basis. When I have; however; runway 3-21 has always been the runway in use. Not today; the runway in use is 25. There is no d-atis for geg; so we got the latest metar via ACARS. While there were light showers in the area; the weather at the airport called for good visibility; light winds; and some high thin cloud coverage. We briefed a visual to runway 25 with the RNAV rnp Z as a backup for guidance. This was accomplished at our cruise altitude. As we neared the airport we got the ATIS on the appropriate frequency. The descent and approach checklists were accomplished accordingly. We began to configure with flaps about 12 miles from the runway. Approach control vectored us to the east around some showers and ultimately towards the airport for a visual. As we proceeded inbound; we deleted the fixes on the RNAV approach which we had passed and eventually we were left with warki; which was the final approach point on that approach. Once we were well clear of the showers; approach asked if we had the airport in sight; which we did; and we were cleared for the visual approach. The crossing altitude for warki was placed in the altitude alerter and everything looked good on the map display as well as visually. Only one problem; looking at the runway; we are high and fast. For some reason I'm of the belief that warki is about five miles or so and 1500 ft above the runway end; like most final fixes are. It's not. In reality; it's three miles and slightly more than 1000 ft AGL. While we're not at warki; we are close to the field. We configure with the gear and more flaps; but ultimately realize as we're turning final near warki that this won't work. The only other aircraft in the vicinity was a flight check aircraft; but they're nowhere near the airport yet. So we asked for a left 360; which the tower approved. At some point in our careers; we've all asked ATC for south turns or a 360 to lose altitude and that generally works very well. We had no weather; terrain; or traffic issues so this seemed like a good idea. Slight problem. I'm still thinking warki; which we're essentially circling around; is 1500' above and five miles from the airport. As we're in the turn; first officer advises me that we're below 1000 ft AGL. We're about 900 ft; level; and configuring our flaps to 30; and know where we are in relation to the runway. At this point; the safest course of action with the least amount of task and mental loading was to continue our turn; roll out on final; confirm we were stabilized; and land; which we did; uneventfully. After we landed; we both had the same thoughts. We should have gone around. This was shall we say 'out of the box thinking;' which has worked in the past elsewhere. Did it work? Yes. Was it safe? We feel it was. Was it what we should've done? No. We didn't try to land when we realized our initial approach was not viable. But; rather than this solution; we simply should've gone around. That would've been the best choice.I've been flying commercially for 37+ years. There isn't a trip that goes by where I don't learn something. We're at an airport that I visit infrequently; conducting a visual approach to a runway I've never landed on before; and using guidance from a procedure I've never used here. Sometimes we can't rely on past experience in which 360's; south turns; and other solutions have worked well. Next time; and yes one day there will be a next time; we will be going around.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 Flight Crew reports being high and fast on a visual approach and elects to make a 360 with ATC's approval. During the maneuver the aircraft gets below 1000 feet AGL. The approach is continued to landing. Both pilots agree a go around was in order.

Narrative: While I have flown into GEG before; it is not an airport that I see on a regular basis. When I have; however; Runway 3-21 has always been the runway in use. Not today; the runway in use is 25. There is no D-ATIS for GEG; so we got the latest METAR via ACARS. While there were light showers in the area; the weather at the airport called for good visibility; light winds; and some high thin cloud coverage. We briefed a visual to Runway 25 with the RNAV RNP Z as a backup for guidance. This was accomplished at our cruise altitude. As we neared the airport we got the ATIS on the appropriate frequency. The Descent and Approach Checklists were accomplished accordingly. We began to configure with flaps about 12 miles from the runway. Approach Control vectored us to the east around some showers and ultimately towards the airport for a visual. As we proceeded inbound; we deleted the fixes on the RNAV approach which we had passed and eventually we were left with WARKI; which was the final approach point on that approach. Once we were well clear of the showers; Approach asked if we had the airport in sight; which we did; and we were cleared for the visual approach. The crossing altitude for WARKI was placed in the altitude alerter and everything looked good on the map display as well as visually. Only one problem; looking at the runway; we are high and fast. For some reason I'm of the belief that WARKI is about five miles or so and 1500 FT above the runway end; like most final fixes are. It's not. In reality; it's three miles and slightly more than 1000 FT AGL. While we're not at WARKI; we are close to the field. We configure with the gear and more flaps; but ultimately realize as we're turning final near WARKI that this won't work. The only other aircraft in the vicinity was a flight check aircraft; but they're nowhere near the airport yet. So we asked for a left 360; which the Tower approved. At some point in our careers; we've all asked ATC for S turns or a 360 to lose altitude and that generally works very well. We had no weather; terrain; or traffic issues so this seemed like a good idea. Slight problem. I'm still thinking WARKI; which we're essentially circling around; is 1500' above and five miles from the airport. As we're in the turn; F/O advises me that we're below 1000 FT AGL. We're about 900 FT; level; and configuring our flaps to 30; and know where we are in relation to the runway. At this point; the safest course of action with the least amount of task and mental loading was to continue our turn; roll out on final; confirm we were stabilized; and land; which we did; uneventfully. After we landed; we both had the same thoughts. We should have gone around. This was shall we say 'out of the box thinking;' which has worked in the past elsewhere. Did it work? Yes. Was it safe? We feel it was. Was it what we should've done? No. We didn't try to land when we realized our initial approach was not viable. But; rather than this solution; we simply should've gone around. That would've been the best choice.I've been flying commercially for 37+ years. There isn't a trip that goes by where I don't learn something. We're at an airport that I visit infrequently; conducting a visual approach to a runway I've never landed on before; and using guidance from a procedure I've never used here. Sometimes we can't rely on past experience in which 360's; S turns; and other solutions have worked well. Next time; and yes one day there will be a next time; we will be going around.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.