Narrative:

I fly for a major airline that has artificially restr it' circling mins to 1000 ft, 3 mi, regardless of what the approach plate says for mins. I think this is a good policy! 1000 ft and 3 mi is definitely a realistic min for circling with large turbojet transports. On the day of this occurrence, we were on an ILS to 21L at dtw. ATIS was giving 900 overcast and 4 mi visibility. The tower told us that when we broke out we could plan on 21C. Without thinking of any circling mins, we said ok. We broke out and saw the runways about 1700 ft MSL (about a 1000 ft AGL), and told the tower we had the runways in sight. He said we were cleared to land on 21C, so we started over. As we were rolling out on final for 21C, the tower clarified our clearance, telling us that we were cleared for the circling approach, since the field was IFR. I glanced at the ATIS, saw the 900 ft, and knew at that point that we were technically not able to accept a circle, but by that point we were already on final for 21C and to go back to 21L would be unsafe, since we were already stabilized at about 500 ft AGL. We landed on 21C with no problem. I feel we were really legal since we broke out at 1000 ft AGL and had 4 mi visibility, but I suppose we were technically not legal on that maneuver since ATIS was still calling 900 ft. Had we thought of the maneuver as a 'circle' instead of a 'VFR side-step', we would have seen the 900 ft and refused it. As it was, I feel that ATC's nonuse of the term 'circle' until after we had already side-stepped to 21C contributed to this problem. I think that unless the field is VFR, ATC should use the term 'circling approach' instead of simply offering another runway 'when you break out.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT VIOLATED CIRCLING MINS DOING A SIDE STEP FROM RWY 21L TO RWY 21C AT DTW.

Narrative: I FLY FOR A MAJOR AIRLINE THAT HAS ARTIFICIALLY RESTR IT' CIRCLING MINS TO 1000 FT, 3 MI, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE APCH PLATE SAYS FOR MINS. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD POLICY! 1000 FT AND 3 MI IS DEFINITELY A REALISTIC MIN FOR CIRCLING WITH LARGE TURBOJET TRANSPORTS. ON THE DAY OF THIS OCCURRENCE, WE WERE ON AN ILS TO 21L AT DTW. ATIS WAS GIVING 900 OVCST AND 4 MI VISIBILITY. THE TWR TOLD US THAT WHEN WE BROKE OUT WE COULD PLAN ON 21C. WITHOUT THINKING OF ANY CIRCLING MINS, WE SAID OK. WE BROKE OUT AND SAW THE RWYS ABOUT 1700 FT MSL (ABOUT A 1000 FT AGL), AND TOLD THE TWR WE HAD THE RWYS IN SIGHT. HE SAID WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON 21C, SO WE STARTED OVER. AS WE WERE ROLLING OUT ON FINAL FOR 21C, THE TWR CLARIFIED OUR CLRNC, TELLING US THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR THE CIRCLING APCH, SINCE THE FIELD WAS IFR. I GLANCED AT THE ATIS, SAW THE 900 FT, AND KNEW AT THAT POINT THAT WE WERE TECHNICALLY NOT ABLE TO ACCEPT A CIRCLE, BUT BY THAT POINT WE WERE ALREADY ON FINAL FOR 21C AND TO GO BACK TO 21L WOULD BE UNSAFE, SINCE WE WERE ALREADY STABILIZED AT ABOUT 500 FT AGL. WE LANDED ON 21C WITH NO PROBLEM. I FEEL WE WERE REALLY LEGAL SINCE WE BROKE OUT AT 1000 FT AGL AND HAD 4 MI VISIBILITY, BUT I SUPPOSE WE WERE TECHNICALLY NOT LEGAL ON THAT MANEUVER SINCE ATIS WAS STILL CALLING 900 FT. HAD WE THOUGHT OF THE MANEUVER AS A 'CIRCLE' INSTEAD OF A 'VFR SIDE-STEP', WE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE 900 FT AND REFUSED IT. AS IT WAS, I FEEL THAT ATC'S NONUSE OF THE TERM 'CIRCLE' UNTIL AFTER WE HAD ALREADY SIDE-STEPPED TO 21C CONTRIBUTED TO THIS PROBLEM. I THINK THAT UNLESS THE FIELD IS VFR, ATC SHOULD USE THE TERM 'CIRCLING APCH' INSTEAD OF SIMPLY OFFERING ANOTHER RWY 'WHEN YOU BREAK OUT.'

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.