Narrative:

We were originally scheduled to operate two legs. Upon arrival in the intermediate leg we were informed of an additional leg and then we would continue to our final destination. I looked at the weather at our final destination and it was showing 2;200 scattered with 8 miles visibility. I knew the main runway and ILS were out on 35L/17R so I assumed we would be landing on 35R with the prevailing crosswind. It was a quick flight up to the intermediate so we were working hard to get set up for the VOR 32 circle to 35R. The non precision approach briefing guide is a bit wordy so we had to keep the pace up doing the brief. We were halfway through the brief when we were notified that the tower had turned the airport around to use 17L. Since we are limited to maintain 1;000-3 on circling approaches and I haven't been to this in a few years I decided that it would be safer for us to just do the straight in NDB 17L instead of circling around in unfamiliar terrain. We were cleared to the NDB and got ready for the approach and did a briefing. There was no NDB in the FMC database so I put the beacon on the legs page with the runway underneath it for graphical reference. Things were looking pretty good even though this was a last minute change of runways by ATC. As we were getting ready for our final intercept for the approach course I tried unsuccessfully to get a good ident on the NDB. My first officer queried me about the flag on the NDB and I told him I was trying to get an ident. I got nothing. I told my first officer to monitor the number 1 radio and I switched over to tower and asked them if they had a green light on the NDB. The controller said that it was unmonitored and has been on/off working (nothing in the notams about that). I told my first officer that we would be unable to do the approach and told ATC that as well. I requested to ATC that we would like to try and get in visually and would need a vector and lower altitude. ATC complied. We configured for landing and waited at 2;200 MSL (approximately 1;700 AGL) for sight of the runway. We saw the runway at about 5 miles and were cleared to do the visual to 17L and to switch to tower. My first officer started the descent for the runway. We were high on the PAPI and about 10 KTS fast. I told my first officer to do some south turns to help him lose some altitude. The runway change ended up giving us a bit of a tailwind on the approach. We had to hold approximately 1;200 FPM to get down to the correct path and maintained plus 10 KTS over target speed. At no time did I feel that what we were doing was unsafe or unstable but we were definitely close to being unstable. I felt that the inputs my first officer was doing were correct during the approach and landed without incident. I do understand the requirements for a stable approach and I have always thought of them as a circle that you never want to be out of nor should you - otherwise perform a go around. My personal circle is much smaller and I demand of myself tighter tolerances. The reason I am writing this report is that even though I believe we met the stabilized criteria for the visual approach we were right on the borderline of being stabilized. I'm not sure what the foqa data uses to submit data if there is a stabilized exceedances but I know we were close to it. In retrospect we should have done the VOR 32 and circled for 17L per the fom minimums for circling. I still think that we salvaged a tight situation that the failed NDB put us in but I'm still not happy that it was an approach that I felt was safe however poorly executed.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757 Captain felt uneasy about a visual approach to an unfamiliar airport after the First Officer flew a slightly high and fast approach near unstable criteria but still safe and probably inside FOQA limits.

Narrative: We were originally scheduled to operate two legs. Upon arrival in the intermediate leg we were informed of an additional leg and then we would continue to our final destination. I looked at the weather at our final destination and it was showing 2;200 scattered with 8 miles visibility. I knew the main runway and ILS were out on 35L/17R so I assumed we would be landing on 35R with the prevailing crosswind. It was a quick flight up to the intermediate so we were working hard to get set up for the VOR 32 circle to 35R. The non precision approach briefing guide is a bit wordy so we had to keep the pace up doing the brief. We were halfway through the brief when we were notified that the Tower had turned the airport around to use 17L. Since we are limited to maintain 1;000-3 on circling approaches and I haven't been to this in a few years I decided that it would be safer for us to just do the straight in NDB 17L instead of circling around in unfamiliar terrain. We were cleared to the NDB and got ready for the approach and did a briefing. There was no NDB in the FMC database so I put the beacon on the legs page with the runway underneath it for graphical reference. Things were looking pretty good even though this was a last minute change of runways by ATC. As we were getting ready for our final intercept for the approach course I tried unsuccessfully to get a good ident on the NDB. My First Officer queried me about the flag on the NDB and I told him I was trying to get an ident. I got nothing. I told my First Officer to monitor the number 1 radio and I switched over to Tower and asked them if they had a green light on the NDB. The Controller said that it was unmonitored and has been on/off working (nothing in the NOTAMs about that). I told my First Officer that we would be unable to do the approach and told ATC that as well. I requested to ATC that we would like to try and get in visually and would need a vector and lower altitude. ATC complied. We configured for landing and waited at 2;200 MSL (approximately 1;700 AGL) for sight of the runway. We saw the runway at about 5 miles and were cleared to do the visual to 17L and to switch to Tower. My First Officer started the descent for the runway. We were high on the PAPI and about 10 KTS fast. I told my First Officer to do some S turns to help him lose some altitude. The runway change ended up giving us a bit of a tailwind on the approach. We had to hold approximately 1;200 FPM to get down to the correct path and maintained plus 10 KTS over target speed. At no time did I feel that what we were doing was unsafe or unstable but we were definitely close to being unstable. I felt that the inputs my First Officer was doing were correct during the approach and landed without incident. I do understand the requirements for a stable approach and I have always thought of them as a circle that you never want to be out of nor should you - otherwise perform a go around. My personal circle is much smaller and I demand of myself tighter tolerances. The reason I am writing this report is that even though I believe we met the stabilized criteria for the visual approach we were right on the borderline of being stabilized. I'm not sure what the FOQA data uses to submit data if there is a stabilized exceedances but I know we were close to it. In retrospect we should have done the VOR 32 and circled for 17L per the FOM minimums for circling. I still think that we salvaged a tight situation that the failed NDB put us in but I'm still not happy that it was an approach that I felt was safe however poorly executed.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.