Narrative:

My first officer was flying the VOR runway 27 approach. Upon reaching our MDA of 420 ft and the missed approach point at 4.8 DME, we lost contact with the ground due to the ragged cloud base. We executed a missed approach per the published procedure and contacted zan to request another VOR runway 27 approach. We broke out 1/2 mi prior to reaching our missed approach point. The runway was off to the right about 1/4 mi and I determined the landing to be much safer to make a left circling approach at 500 ft than to try to turn right towards the runway, then left to line up with runway 27. I took control of the aircraft, since the runway was on my side during the left bank. The visibility was in excess of 6 mi, allowing for a normal 30 degree bank to runway 02. After entering the terminal building, I was approached by an FAA safety inspector from FSDO in fairbanks. He questioned the validity of my altitude, as well as the bank angle I used during my left hand circling approach. The entire procedure was in compliance with ATC procedures and announced to FSS prior to executing the procedure after which I was given a current wind check. The circling procedure was executed to avoid the steep banking maneuver that would have been necessary in order to land on the initially intended runway 27. The left hand circle to land was executed safely and without incident and in compliance with all FARS. I feel the FAA examiner's inquiry was unjust and unnecessary. At this writing I have not been charged with a violation and have not been led to believe that I will be.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN FAA INSPECTOR QUESTIONS A SUCCESSFUL CIRCLE-TO-LAND APCH.

Narrative: MY FO WAS FLYING THE VOR RWY 27 APCH. UPON REACHING OUR MDA OF 420 FT AND THE MISSED APCH POINT AT 4.8 DME, WE LOST CONTACT WITH THE GND DUE TO THE RAGGED CLOUD BASE. WE EXECUTED A MISSED APCH PER THE PUBLISHED PROC AND CONTACTED ZAN TO REQUEST ANOTHER VOR RWY 27 APCH. WE BROKE OUT 1/2 MI PRIOR TO REACHING OUR MISSED APCH POINT. THE RWY WAS OFF TO THE R ABOUT 1/4 MI AND I DETERMINED THE LNDG TO BE MUCH SAFER TO MAKE A L CIRCLING APCH AT 500 FT THAN TO TRY TO TURN R TOWARDS THE RWY, THEN L TO LINE UP WITH RWY 27. I TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT, SINCE THE RWY WAS ON MY SIDE DURING THE L BANK. THE VISIBILITY WAS IN EXCESS OF 6 MI, ALLOWING FOR A NORMAL 30 DEG BANK TO RWY 02. AFTER ENTERING THE TERMINAL BUILDING, I WAS APCHED BY AN FAA SAFETY INSPECTOR FROM FSDO IN FAIRBANKS. HE QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF MY ALT, AS WELL AS THE BANK ANGLE I USED DURING MY L HAND CIRCLING APCH. THE ENTIRE PROC WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ATC PROCS AND ANNOUNCED TO FSS PRIOR TO EXECUTING THE PROC AFTER WHICH I WAS GIVEN A CURRENT WIND CHK. THE CIRCLING PROC WAS EXECUTED TO AVOID THE STEEP BANKING MANEUVER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IN ORDER TO LAND ON THE INITIALLY INTENDED RWY 27. THE L HAND CIRCLE TO LAND WAS EXECUTED SAFELY AND WITHOUT INCIDENT AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FARS. I FEEL THE FAA EXAMINER'S INQUIRY WAS UNJUST AND UNNECESSARY. AT THIS WRITING I HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION AND HAVE NOT BEEN LED TO BELIEVE THAT I WILL BE.

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.