Narrative:

We were on the mount vernon visual to runway 36 at dca approximately 3 mi out when the tower asked if we could accept runway 33. It caught me by surprise since it had been a long time since I had been at dca in a north operation but I had landed before on 33 with no consequence and it was daytime VMC with unrestricted visibility and a dry runway. With no time to fully evaluate the situation because an immediate decision was necessary I told my first officer to accept the runway 33 visual clearance. I commenced the circling maneuver and made a firm but uneventful landing using close to maximum reverse and moderate braking slowing to taxi speed well before the end of the short runway. After we parked at the gate I noticed the FLIP chart with our landing gross weight highlighted. I had a sinking feeling that I had never considered landing weight limits and 'perhaps' had made an overweight landing. We got out the manuals and after applying all the appropriate adjustments concluded that our landing was within legal limits. However, that was only luck and could have just as easily been out of limits. In our discussion the first officer admitted that he had briefly thought of landing weight limits but let it pass without saying anything because there was no time to fully analyze the situation. If the subject had even come up I would have rejected the clearance even though it ultimately turned out to be a totally safe and legal approach and landing. My advice to myself and others is to always consider the possibility of a runway 33 request anytime you're on a visual to 36 in dca. Evaluate all the factors well ahead of time and make your decision early whether or not you will accept a 33 clearance even though it may not even be offered or asked for. Even though the tower has never criticized or even appeared upset when I have declined runway 33 in the past (my decisions to decline had already been worked out ahead of time) it would be very nice and lead to a safer operation if then could either ask the question upon first contact or at least raise the possibility so that you would have more time to evaluate the conditions. It would also help to include in the ATIS tape a statement that air carrier aircraft may be asked to land on 33 when a visual north operation is in progress. This would be especially good for those pilots who hadn't been there in some time and might have forgotten that the tower never seems to bring it up until the last possible moment. I'm sure you've heard this before but, I'll never do it again without previously considering all the factors.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR ASKED TO CHANGE RWY AT 3 MI ON APCH. CAUGHT SHORT THEY ACCEPT BUT THINK LATER ABOUT POSSIBLE OVERWT LNDG.

Narrative: WE WERE ON THE MOUNT VERNON VISUAL TO RWY 36 AT DCA APPROX 3 MI OUT WHEN THE TWR ASKED IF WE COULD ACCEPT RWY 33. IT CAUGHT ME BY SURPRISE SINCE IT HAD BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I HAD BEEN AT DCA IN A N OP BUT I HAD LANDED BEFORE ON 33 WITH NO CONSEQUENCE AND IT WAS DAYTIME VMC WITH UNRESTRICTED VISIBILITY AND A DRY RWY. WITH NO TIME TO FULLY EVALUATE THE SITUATION BECAUSE AN IMMEDIATE DECISION WAS NECESSARY I TOLD MY FO TO ACCEPT THE RWY 33 VISUAL CLRNC. I COMMENCED THE CIRCLING MANEUVER AND MADE A FIRM BUT UNEVENTFUL LNDG USING CLOSE TO MAX REVERSE AND MODERATE BRAKING SLOWING TO TAXI SPD WELL BEFORE THE END OF THE SHORT RWY. AFTER WE PARKED AT THE GATE I NOTICED THE FLIP CHART WITH OUR LNDG GROSS WT HIGHLIGHTED. I HAD A SINKING FEELING THAT I HAD NEVER CONSIDERED LNDG WT LIMITS AND 'PERHAPS' HAD MADE AN OVERWT LNDG. WE GOT OUT THE MANUALS AND AFTER APPLYING ALL THE APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS CONCLUDED THAT OUR LNDG WAS WITHIN LEGAL LIMITS. HOWEVER, THAT WAS ONLY LUCK AND COULD HAVE JUST AS EASILY BEEN OUT OF LIMITS. IN OUR DISCUSSION THE FO ADMITTED THAT HE HAD BRIEFLY THOUGHT OF LNDG WT LIMITS BUT LET IT PASS WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TIME TO FULLY ANALYZE THE SITUATION. IF THE SUBJECT HAD EVEN COME UP I WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE CLRNC EVEN THOUGH IT ULTIMATELY TURNED OUT TO BE A TOTALLY SAFE AND LEGAL APCH AND LNDG. MY ADVICE TO MYSELF AND OTHERS IS TO ALWAYS CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF A RWY 33 REQUEST ANYTIME YOU'RE ON A VISUAL TO 36 IN DCA. EVALUATE ALL THE FACTORS WELL AHEAD OF TIME AND MAKE YOUR DECISION EARLY WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL ACCEPT A 33 CLRNC EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT EVEN BE OFFERED OR ASKED FOR. EVEN THOUGH THE TWR HAS NEVER CRITICIZED OR EVEN APPEARED UPSET WHEN I HAVE DECLINED RWY 33 IN THE PAST (MY DECISIONS TO DECLINE HAD ALREADY BEEN WORKED OUT AHEAD OF TIME) IT WOULD BE VERY NICE AND LEAD TO A SAFER OP IF THEN COULD EITHER ASK THE QUESTION UPON FIRST CONTACT OR AT LEAST RAISE THE POSSIBILITY SO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE MORE TIME TO EVALUATE THE CONDITIONS. IT WOULD ALSO HELP TO INCLUDE IN THE ATIS TAPE A STATEMENT THAT ACR ACFT MAY BE ASKED TO LAND ON 33 WHEN A VISUAL N OP IS IN PROGRESS. THIS WOULD BE ESPECIALLY GOOD FOR THOSE PLTS WHO HADN'T BEEN THERE IN SOME TIME AND MIGHT HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT THE TWR NEVER SEEMS TO BRING IT UP UNTIL THE LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT. I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE BUT, I'LL NEVER DO IT AGAIN WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTORS.

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.