Narrative:

First officer was flying the runway 19 river visual approach to dca. Tower cleared us to land on runway 22. First officer flew the aircraft on base leg to runway 22. Winds were about 320 degrees at 10 KTS. First officer was maintaining 1/2 bank angle throughout the base leg and it was becoming apparent to me that we were not going to line up with the runway. I was sensing my first officer was becoming uneasy with the maneuvering. I told my first officer that I had controls of the aircraft. We were around 500 ft AGL to maybe 400 ft AGL and I increased bank to 25 degrees with airspeed of vref +10 KTS. We did go past the extended centerline of the runway, but was to get it back on final. I remember aircraft on proper path (PAPI) and airspeed slowing to vref as we approached the threshold. We got a bank angle aural around 100 ft AGL which may have been due to the winds and maneuvering. We landed in first third of runway and exited a taxiway a. Afterwards, first officer thought she was following stabilized approach policy and recounted a past experience with a different captain while doing same approach to runway 22. We also discussed pink pages 10-10A reference to bank angles more than 15 degrees and stabilized approach policy. We looked at a commercial chart depiction of airport, river and P-56. I feel that it is asking a lot to make this approach safely when you consider the limitation of the CL65 (high reference speeds), wind direction, length of runway, and tight maneuvering space due to P-56. Supplemental information from acn 624118: flying into dca. Originally the ATIS was broadcasting lndgs on runway 1. When we talked to approach the airport had been turned around and now they were landing on runway 19. We were to expect the river visual runway 19. I set up for the approach using the dca VOR, radial 148 degrees inbound and DME for guidance. At about 1500 ft tower advised us that we were to circle to land to runway 22. The captain accepted the runway and I continued to maneuver the aircraft down the river and make the circle to runway 22. I was continuing the descent and flying the aircraft at vref, landing speed. I kept the aircraft at landing speed because of the short runway we were to land on. I was turning the aircraft at a 15 degree bank, as per the limitations on the airplane when flying at approach speed. A 15 degree bank was not going to be steep enough to make the landing. I was told to turn steeper by the captain, but did not because of the speed we were flying. The 15 degree bank I was doing would have caused us to go around and try the approach again, which I would have executed very shortly after turning towards the runway. At about 200 ft the captain took control of the airplane, banked the aircraft 45 degrees and landed on runway 22. At about 80 ft we heard a 'bank angle' warning from the airplane. Upon landing I was told that a go around in the dca area is not something we want to do because the airspace was so busy and was not needed on this approach. I also realized that we did not have the current ATIS. Although I was told we did not exceed limitations when landing on this short runway, I believe we might have, due to our weight and if there was a tailwind. I do not believe the captain looked up the landing data before arriving in the airport vicinity. I feel this approach was very unsafe and a go around would have been the safest thing to do in this situation. I have executed a go around in dca before and it is a non-event. The captain also said that if there was an FAA inspector in the jump seat, he would have never accepted runway 22 and never maneuvered the aircraft in that manner.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CL65 CAPT TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT AFTER THE FO OVERSHOT THE RWY AT DCA.

Narrative: FO WAS FLYING THE RWY 19 RIVER VISUAL APCH TO DCA. TWR CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 22. FO FLEW THE ACFT ON BASE LEG TO RWY 22. WINDS WERE ABOUT 320 DEGS AT 10 KTS. FO WAS MAINTAINING 1/2 BANK ANGLE THROUGHOUT THE BASE LEG AND IT WAS BECOMING APPARENT TO ME THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO LINE UP WITH THE RWY. I WAS SENSING MY FO WAS BECOMING UNEASY WITH THE MANEUVERING. I TOLD MY FO THAT I HAD CTLS OF THE ACFT. WE WERE AROUND 500 FT AGL TO MAYBE 400 FT AGL AND I INCREASED BANK TO 25 DEGS WITH AIRSPD OF VREF +10 KTS. WE DID GO PAST THE EXTENDED CTRLINE OF THE RWY, BUT WAS TO GET IT BACK ON FINAL. I REMEMBER ACFT ON PROPER PATH (PAPI) AND AIRSPD SLOWING TO VREF AS WE APCHED THE THRESHOLD. WE GOT A BANK ANGLE AURAL AROUND 100 FT AGL WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE WINDS AND MANEUVERING. WE LANDED IN FIRST THIRD OF RWY AND EXITED A TXWY A. AFTERWARDS, FO THOUGHT SHE WAS FOLLOWING STABILIZED APCH POLICY AND RECOUNTED A PAST EXPERIENCE WITH A DIFFERENT CAPT WHILE DOING SAME APCH TO RWY 22. WE ALSO DISCUSSED PINK PAGES 10-10A REF TO BANK ANGLES MORE THAN 15 DEGS AND STABILIZED APCH POLICY. WE LOOKED AT A COMMERCIAL CHART DEPICTION OF ARPT, RIVER AND P-56. I FEEL THAT IT IS ASKING A LOT TO MAKE THIS APCH SAFELY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE LIMITATION OF THE CL65 (HIGH REF SPDS), WIND DIRECTION, LENGTH OF RWY, AND TIGHT MANEUVERING SPACE DUE TO P-56. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 624118: FLYING INTO DCA. ORIGINALLY THE ATIS WAS BROADCASTING LNDGS ON RWY 1. WHEN WE TALKED TO APCH THE ARPT HAD BEEN TURNED AROUND AND NOW THEY WERE LNDG ON RWY 19. WE WERE TO EXPECT THE RIVER VISUAL RWY 19. I SET UP FOR THE APCH USING THE DCA VOR, RADIAL 148 DEGS INBOUND AND DME FOR GUIDANCE. AT ABOUT 1500 FT TWR ADVISED US THAT WE WERE TO CIRCLE TO LAND TO RWY 22. THE CAPT ACCEPTED THE RWY AND I CONTINUED TO MANEUVER THE ACFT DOWN THE RIVER AND MAKE THE CIRCLE TO RWY 22. I WAS CONTINUING THE DSCNT AND FLYING THE ACFT AT VREF, LNDG SPD. I KEPT THE ACFT AT LNDG SPD BECAUSE OF THE SHORT RWY WE WERE TO LAND ON. I WAS TURNING THE ACFT AT A 15 DEG BANK, AS PER THE LIMITATIONS ON THE AIRPLANE WHEN FLYING AT APCH SPD. A 15 DEG BANK WAS NOT GOING TO BE STEEP ENOUGH TO MAKE THE LNDG. I WAS TOLD TO TURN STEEPER BY THE CAPT, BUT DID NOT BECAUSE OF THE SPD WE WERE FLYING. THE 15 DEG BANK I WAS DOING WOULD HAVE CAUSED US TO GO AROUND AND TRY THE APCH AGAIN, WHICH I WOULD HAVE EXECUTED VERY SHORTLY AFTER TURNING TOWARDS THE RWY. AT ABOUT 200 FT THE CAPT TOOK CTL OF THE AIRPLANE, BANKED THE ACFT 45 DEGS AND LANDED ON RWY 22. AT ABOUT 80 FT WE HEARD A 'BANK ANGLE' WARNING FROM THE AIRPLANE. UPON LNDG I WAS TOLD THAT A GAR IN THE DCA AREA IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO BECAUSE THE AIRSPACE WAS SO BUSY AND WAS NOT NEEDED ON THIS APCH. I ALSO REALIZED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE CURRENT ATIS. ALTHOUGH I WAS TOLD WE DID NOT EXCEED LIMITATIONS WHEN LNDG ON THIS SHORT RWY, I BELIEVE WE MIGHT HAVE, DUE TO OUR WT AND IF THERE WAS A TAILWIND. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CAPT LOOKED UP THE LNDG DATA BEFORE ARRIVING IN THE ARPT VICINITY. I FEEL THIS APCH WAS VERY UNSAFE AND A GAR WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAFEST THING TO DO IN THIS SIT. I HAVE EXECUTED A GAR IN DCA BEFORE AND IT IS A NON-EVENT. THE CAPT ALSO SAID THAT IF THERE WAS AN FAA INSPECTOR IN THE JUMP SEAT, HE WOULD HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED RWY 22 AND NEVER MANEUVERED THE ACFT IN THAT MANNER.

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.