Narrative:

The reason for this report is we landed without problem or incident on a 5200 ft runway which we later discovered was authorized for takeoff only by our flight operations department. While the landing was without problem, I'm concerned that I unwittingly violated an edict by my company management. As usually happens in a case like this, there were mitigating circumstances. It was to be a dry, VFR, midday landing at dca at a fairly light weight. Dca ATIS advised the mt vernon visual approach to runway 36 was in use with circle to land runway 33. Winds were reported at 290/20635. I briefed the approach planning to land on the longer runway 36 if available and within crosswind limits otherwise we would circle to land 33. I had never landed on runway 33 before at dca and had the vague suspicion that I had read somewhere that we weren't supposed to use it. A thorough check of the approach plates as well as the 6 special pages regarding dca didn't reveal any prohibition. The on board 'arm' manual as well as the odm didn't reveal any restrictions as well as showed the landing to be well within performance capabilities. Anyway, the winds did not abate and we landed on runway 33. Later, after arriving at the gate and pursuing the flight plan again the copilot found the following company NOTAM; 'runway 15/33 authorized for takeoff only. No lndgs allowed per flight operations.' my concern is that although I did overlook the NOTAM on the flight plan on this particular day, I did a conscientious search in the time available of other likely areas that would detail restrictions. I feel if flight operations had reasons to permanently restrict runway 15/33 use it should be disseminated in more than 1 place. After all, we already have 6 special pages detailing unique noise abatement, curfew and other special dca situations. Why not 1 more?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MAKES LNDG ON RWY COMPANY AUTHORIZES FOR TKOF ONLY.

Narrative: THE REASON FOR THIS RPT IS WE LANDED WITHOUT PROBLEM OR INCIDENT ON A 5200 FT RWY WHICH WE LATER DISCOVERED WAS AUTHORIZED FOR TKOF ONLY BY OUR FLT OPS DEPT. WHILE THE LNDG WAS WITHOUT PROBLEM, I'M CONCERNED THAT I UNWITTINGLY VIOLATED AN EDICT BY MY COMPANY MGMNT. AS USUALLY HAPPENS IN A CASE LIKE THIS, THERE WERE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. IT WAS TO BE A DRY, VFR, MIDDAY LNDG AT DCA AT A FAIRLY LIGHT WEIGHT. DCA ATIS ADVISED THE MT VERNON VISUAL APCH TO RWY 36 WAS IN USE WITH CIRCLE TO LAND RWY 33. WINDS WERE RPTED AT 290/20635. I BRIEFED THE APCH PLANNING TO LAND ON THE LONGER RWY 36 IF AVAILABLE AND WITHIN XWIND LIMITS OTHERWISE WE WOULD CIRCLE TO LAND 33. I HAD NEVER LANDED ON RWY 33 BEFORE AT DCA AND HAD THE VAGUE SUSPICION THAT I HAD READ SOMEWHERE THAT WE WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO USE IT. A THOROUGH CHK OF THE APCH PLATES AS WELL AS THE 6 SPECIAL PAGES REGARDING DCA DIDN'T REVEAL ANY PROHIBITION. THE ON BOARD 'ARM' MANUAL AS WELL AS THE ODM DIDN'T REVEAL ANY RESTRICTIONS AS WELL AS SHOWED THE LNDG TO BE WELL WITHIN PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES. ANYWAY, THE WINDS DID NOT ABATE AND WE LANDED ON RWY 33. LATER, AFTER ARRIVING AT THE GATE AND PURSUING THE FLT PLAN AGAIN THE COPLT FOUND THE FOLLOWING COMPANY NOTAM; 'RWY 15/33 AUTHORIZED FOR TKOF ONLY. NO LNDGS ALLOWED PER FLT OPS.' MY CONCERN IS THAT ALTHOUGH I DID OVERLOOK THE NOTAM ON THE FLT PLAN ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY, I DID A CONSCIENTIOUS SEARCH IN THE TIME AVAILABLE OF OTHER LIKELY AREAS THAT WOULD DETAIL RESTRICTIONS. I FEEL IF FLT OPS HAD REASONS TO PERMANENTLY RESTRICT RWY 15/33 USE IT SHOULD BE DISSEMINATED IN MORE THAN 1 PLACE. AFTER ALL, WE ALREADY HAVE 6 SPECIAL PAGES DETAILING UNIQUE NOISE ABATEMENT, CURFEW AND OTHER SPECIAL DCA SITUATIONS. WHY NOT 1 MORE?

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.