Narrative:

Heading into rdm we were cleared for the rnp rwy 5 and told to contact CTAF. After turning final we noticed a tailwind that was increasing the more we descended. The winds were reported calm earlier but a quick re-check of the automated weather indicated we would be landing with a decent tailwind component. To avoid this the captain decided to circle and land on 23; which we did without issue. After landing I called center to cancel our flight plan and the controller asked us which runway we landed on. I told him 23 due to tailwinds and he responded that the approach had no circling procedure and that we should have called him. The flight plan was then closed and we parked the airplane.we requested the rnp into rdm to make the descent easy and seamless; not due to weather. As such; exactly 0% of my attention was focused on the minima section of the approach chart. With the late decision to circle and the fact that most approaches have circling minimums; I didn't give it much thought. As I found out later; however; rnp approaches don't have circling minimums. Some compounding factors include the rarity of circling approaches and the fact we were on CTAF - so even if we recognized the issue it would have been difficult to quickly call center and amend the approach clearance. In hindsight I should have just called the airport at some point and gotten the visual; along with all the flexibility that comes with it. It seemed like an unnecessary call at the time though since we were just going to follow the rnp course anyway - lesson learned.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier First Officer reported executing a circling approach at RDM airport and discovered later it was not an approved procedure.

Narrative: Heading into RDM we were cleared for the RNP Rwy 5 and told to contact CTAF. After turning final we noticed a tailwind that was increasing the more we descended. The winds were reported calm earlier but a quick re-check of the automated weather indicated we would be landing with a decent tailwind component. To avoid this the Captain decided to circle and land on 23; which we did without issue. After landing I called Center to cancel our flight plan and the Controller asked us which runway we landed on. I told him 23 due to tailwinds and he responded that the approach had no circling procedure and that we should have called him. The flight plan was then closed and we parked the airplane.We requested the RNP into RDM to make the descent easy and seamless; not due to weather. As such; exactly 0% of my attention was focused on the minima section of the approach chart. With the late decision to circle and the fact that most approaches have circling minimums; I didn't give it much thought. As I found out later; however; RNP approaches don't have circling minimums. Some compounding factors include the rarity of circling approaches and the fact we were on CTAF - so even if we recognized the issue it would have been difficult to quickly call Center and amend the approach clearance. In hindsight I should have just called the airport at some point and gotten the visual; along with all the flexibility that comes with it. It seemed like an unnecessary call at the time though since we were just going to follow the RNP course anyway - lesson learned.

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.