Narrative:

Inadvertent descent to lower published decision altitude due to miscom during brief at the beginning of the trip. I conducted a brief and asked my first officer if he had his 100 hours and if he was off high minimums for rnp. He said he was. I then told him that I was a high minimums captain and would be adding 100 ft and 1/2 mi to the published minimums for regular approachs, that I would need to land on the runways less than 7000 ft, but we were good to go for rnp. On approach into ZZZ, I thought we were good down to minimums of 336 ft for the .15 rnp. We flew the approach, had ground contact out of 8000 ft, and flew through a scud layer at 1000 ft, momentarily lost the field and then broke out at 850 ft with good visibility. On the next leg, on the way to ZZZ the first officer pulled out his rnp operating experience form and filled out a block for the rnp runway 26 to ZZZ! Surprised, I remarked that I thought he said he was off high minimums for rnp when I had asked at the morning brief. He thought I was asking him if he was off high minimums for his 100 hours. We both realized we had misunderstood each other at that point. I thought we were good to go to the .15 rnp minimums, when we were restr to the .3 rnp minimums of 1238 ft. We had the FMC loaded for .15 rnp. It was a marginal infraction with the WX as it was, but a good heads up for crews in the future to be more specific about what high minimums they are talking about. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: analyst called the first officer who had submitted his own report on this event. He advised analyst of the manner in which training and qualification is accomplished for this user and airport specific procedure. He reemphasized the miscom between himself and the captain. Also advised that the company had eliminated the experience criteria in place at the time of this event because the approach was so specific that airmen were not getting enough exposure to it to meet those criteria.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF B734 FLEW RNAV TYPE APCH USING WRONG RNP. HIGH MINIMUM CAPT MISUNDERSTOOD FO'S EXPERIENCE LEVEL REGARDING APPROPRIATE DECISION ALT.

Narrative: INADVERTENT DSCNT TO LOWER PUBLISHED DECISION ALT DUE TO MISCOM DURING BRIEF AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIP. I CONDUCTED A BRIEF AND ASKED MY FO IF HE HAD HIS 100 HRS AND IF HE WAS OFF HIGH MINIMUMS FOR RNP. HE SAID HE WAS. I THEN TOLD HIM THAT I WAS A HIGH MINIMUMS CAPT AND WOULD BE ADDING 100 FT AND 1/2 MI TO THE PUBLISHED MINIMUMS FOR REGULAR APCHS, THAT I WOULD NEED TO LAND ON THE RWYS LESS THAN 7000 FT, BUT WE WERE GOOD TO GO FOR RNP. ON APCH INTO ZZZ, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOOD DOWN TO MINIMUMS OF 336 FT FOR THE .15 RNP. WE FLEW THE APCH, HAD GND CONTACT OUT OF 8000 FT, AND FLEW THROUGH A SCUD LAYER AT 1000 FT, MOMENTARILY LOST THE FIELD AND THEN BROKE OUT AT 850 FT WITH GOOD VISIBILITY. ON THE NEXT LEG, ON THE WAY TO ZZZ THE FO PULLED OUT HIS RNP OPERATING EXPERIENCE FORM AND FILLED OUT A BLOCK FOR THE RNP RWY 26 TO ZZZ! SURPRISED, I REMARKED THAT I THOUGHT HE SAID HE WAS OFF HIGH MINIMUMS FOR RNP WHEN I HAD ASKED AT THE MORNING BRIEF. HE THOUGHT I WAS ASKING HIM IF HE WAS OFF HIGH MINIMUMS FOR HIS 100 HRS. WE BOTH REALIZED WE HAD MISUNDERSTOOD EACH OTHER AT THAT POINT. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOOD TO GO TO THE .15 RNP MINIMUMS, WHEN WE WERE RESTR TO THE .3 RNP MINIMUMS OF 1238 FT. WE HAD THE FMC LOADED FOR .15 RNP. IT WAS A MARGINAL INFRACTION WITH THE WX AS IT WAS, BUT A GOOD HEADS UP FOR CREWS IN THE FUTURE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT HIGH MINIMUMS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: ANALYST CALLED THE FO WHO HAD SUBMITTED HIS OWN RPT ON THIS EVENT. HE ADVISED ANALYST OF THE MANNER IN WHICH TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION IS ACCOMPLISHED FOR THIS USER AND ARPT SPECIFIC PROC. HE REEMPHASIZED THE MISCOM BTWN HIMSELF AND THE CAPT. ALSO ADVISED THAT THE COMPANY HAD ELIMINATED THE EXPERIENCE CRITERIA IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THIS EVENT BECAUSE THE APCH WAS SO SPECIFIC THAT AIRMEN WERE NOT GETTING ENOUGH EXPOSURE TO IT TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA.

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.