Narrative:

I was flying with a new captain and was the pilot monitoring as he was a high-mins captain. We were landing at dca for the second time of the day and had previously landed on the same runway earlier in the morning; but flew the river visual instead. We are both relatively unfamiliar with dca and especially the lda Z approach to 19. We were under the impression that the lda Z had vertical guidance; however; upon further review of the approach I realize the lda Y has glideslope guidance; and the Z does not. Because of this we waited until we were high on the approach until we began to descend without vertical guidance. This lead to us making a steep approach; overshooting the centerline to lose additional altitude; while still remaining clear of the east side of the river and the prohibited area; and banking until 100 ft on final.we landed without incident and taxied to the gate. I believe that we were definitely classified as an unstabilized approach; and should have absolutely executed a go-around. I feel that I should have been more assertive in this recommendation and should have pushed for a go-around sooner on the approach. We exceeded the majority of the go-around criteria; even considering we were executing a visual approach. We should have especially had the mind set to go-around given our unfamiliarity of the approach and the critical nature of the area; the high minimum restrictions of the captain; and the fact that he is new to the company. Given all of these criteria we should have abandoned the approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier First Officer reported a failure to call for a go-around when the high minimums Captain flew an unstabilized approach to Runway 19 at DCA.

Narrative: I was flying with a new Captain and was the Pilot Monitoring as he was a high-mins Captain. We were landing at DCA for the second time of the day and had previously landed on the same runway earlier in the morning; but flew the River Visual instead. We are both relatively unfamiliar with DCA and especially the LDA Z approach to 19. We were under the impression that the LDA Z had vertical guidance; however; upon further review of the approach I realize the LDA Y has glideslope guidance; and the Z does not. Because of this we waited until we were high on the approach until we began to descend without vertical guidance. This lead to us making a steep approach; overshooting the centerline to lose additional altitude; while still remaining clear of the east side of the river and the Prohibited area; and banking until 100 ft on final.We landed without incident and taxied to the gate. I believe that we were definitely classified as an unstabilized approach; and should have absolutely executed a go-around. I feel that I should have been more assertive in this recommendation and should have pushed for a go-around sooner on the approach. We exceeded the majority of the go-around criteria; even considering we were executing a visual approach. We should have especially had the mind set to go-around given our unfamiliarity of the approach and the critical nature of the area; the high minimum restrictions of the captain; and the fact that he is new to the company. Given all of these criteria we should have abandoned the approach.

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.