First officer claims the captain accepted a clearance for an IAP ILS approach with circle to land in...

Attributes
ACN	175589
Time
Date	199104
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dca
State Reference	DC
Altitude	msl bound lower : 1300 msl bound upper : 6000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : dca tower : dca
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other landing other
Route In Use	approach : circling
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 160 flight time total : 4100 flight time type : 420
ASRS Report	175589
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

As we approached dca ATIS was reporting C4V broken 10 overcast 3R-F 0406 30.26 ILS 436 with runway 36 HIRL cl and TDZ lights OTS. Approach control asked our intentions and the captain elected to continue. At this time approach offered us the ILS to 35 with a circle to land on runway 33. I stated to the captain that our company regulations only allow circling approachs with a 1000' ceiling and 3 mi visibility, and that we should hold or divert to dulles until the 36 runway lights were operating or the WX was at our minimums. This initially was taking place during our descent and we were busy with checklists. With no response to my first comments, I again told the captain that with the current WX, we were not authority/authorized to accept a circling. The captain now called approach control and asked about the lighting on runway 36 and current WX (no change), and then told approach control that we would fly the ILS to runway 36 and if we saw the airport we would circle to land on runway 33. We were vectored onto the localizer and cleared for the ILS 36 circle to 33. Again I stated our requirements and received no response form the captain. All is not lost however; with the completion of the before landing checklist at approximately 1300' AGL, the airport appears and a circle to runway 33 is made with a landing. At no time was the aircraft in jeopardy, but a lack of proper judgement was very apparent. At the completion of this trip, I spoke with a union safety/professional standards rep and it appears that this captain has a reputation for doing things like this. It was no surprise then that we were unable to communicate effectively and I am still at a loss as to what could have been done differently. The captain's only comment after landing was that, 'I gave him too much to worry about and that I was supposed to make his job easier.' my responsibility as first officer is to inform the captain any time I believe the aircraft is being handled improperly or placed in jeopardy which I did and which would have made his job much easier had he even attempted to discuss the situation rather than ignore my concerns.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FO CLAIMS THE CAPT ACCEPTED A CLRNC FOR AN IAP ILS APCH WITH CIRCLE TO LAND IN WX REPORTED BELOW COMPANY CIRCLE TO LAND MINIMUMS.

Narrative: AS WE APCHED DCA ATIS WAS RPTING C4V BROKEN 10 OVCST 3R-F 0406 30.26 ILS 436 WITH RWY 36 HIRL CL AND TDZ LIGHTS OTS. APCH CTL ASKED OUR INTENTIONS AND THE CAPT ELECTED TO CONTINUE. AT THIS TIME APCH OFFERED US THE ILS TO 35 WITH A CIRCLE TO LAND ON RWY 33. I STATED TO THE CAPT THAT OUR COMPANY REGS ONLY ALLOW CIRCLING APCHS WITH A 1000' CEILING AND 3 MI VISIBILITY, AND THAT WE SHOULD HOLD OR DIVERT TO DULLES UNTIL THE 36 RWY LIGHTS WERE OPERATING OR THE WX WAS AT OUR MINIMUMS. THIS INITIALLY WAS TAKING PLACE DURING OUR DSNT AND WE WERE BUSY WITH CHKLISTS. WITH NO RESPONSE TO MY FIRST COMMENTS, I AGAIN TOLD THE CAPT THAT WITH THE CURRENT WX, WE WERE NOT AUTH TO ACCEPT A CIRCLING. THE CAPT NOW CALLED APCH CTL AND ASKED ABOUT THE LIGHTING ON RWY 36 AND CURRENT WX (NO CHANGE), AND THEN TOLD APCH CTL THAT WE WOULD FLY THE ILS TO RWY 36 AND IF WE SAW THE ARPT WE WOULD CIRCLE TO LAND ON RWY 33. WE WERE VECTORED ONTO THE LOC AND CLRED FOR THE ILS 36 CIRCLE TO 33. AGAIN I STATED OUR REQUIREMENTS AND RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FORM THE CAPT. ALL IS NOT LOST HOWEVER; WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE BEFORE LNDG CHKLIST AT APPROX 1300' AGL, THE ARPT APPEARS AND A CIRCLE TO RWY 33 IS MADE WITH A LNDG. AT NO TIME WAS THE ACFT IN JEOPARDY, BUT A LACK OF PROPER JUDGEMENT WAS VERY APPARENT. AT THE COMPLETION OF THIS TRIP, I SPOKE WITH A UNION SAFETY/PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REP AND IT APPEARS THAT THIS CAPT HAS A REPUTATION FOR DOING THINGS LIKE THIS. IT WAS NO SURPRISE THEN THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY AND I AM STILL AT A LOSS AS TO WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY. THE CAPT'S ONLY COMMENT AFTER LNDG WAS THAT, 'I GAVE HIM TOO MUCH TO WORRY ABOUT AND THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE HIS JOB EASIER.' MY RESPONSIBILITY AS F/O IS TO INFORM THE CAPT ANY TIME I BELIEVE THE ACFT IS BEING HANDLED IMPROPERLY OR PLACED IN JEOPARDY WHICH I DID AND WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE HIS JOB MUCH EASIER HAD HE EVEN ATTEMPTED TO DISCUSS THE SITUATION RATHER THAN IGNORE MY CONCERNS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.

First officer claims the captain accepted a clearance for an IAP ILS approach with circle to land in WX reported below company circle to land minimums.