Air carrier flight crew reported they flew below circle-to-land approach minimums and lost sight of the airport while maneuvering to land. Using local terrain as a visual guide; Captain continued to landing.
Synopsis
Air carrier flight crew reported they flew below circle-to-land approach minimums and lost sight of the airport while maneuvering to land. Using local terrain as a visual guide; Captain continued to landing.
Narrative
The winds were favoring runway 29 in Ketchikan; however; due to the lack of usable approaches; we were forced to do a localizer approach for runway 11 and circle. The captain I was flying with was very experienced and had explained in route how the circle is normally handled at this airport due to terrain. We executed exactly what he had briefed and flew around the terrain rather than remaining within the 3nm circling limits. Due to clouds and terrain; we were unable to see runway while on downwind however we always were in sight of terrain and island the runway was on. We were in vfr conditions the entire time; however due to clouds coming onto final especially we did have to drop lower. Lowest we got was around 800 AGL while on final. Also during circle; we lost contact with Ketchikan radio frequency. They called three times and I as pilot monitoring answered each time. It became clear they weren't hearing us after the third call and I swapped to comm 2 and was able to regain contact. We were on base by this point. Continued to landing with no issues. I think part of the cause of this event was my own inexperience; as this was the first time I've flown in Alaska; as well as expectation bias and also my trusting that the captain knew the proper means to handle an approach at this airport in these conditions. I was struggling with the comms a bit as I was unfamiliar at the sort of communication needed for a FSS frequency managing traffic. Because of this; I did not explain properly what we intended to do; however I was also under the impression that we were doing exactly what ATC was expecting. Logically; I knew what we were doing was more akin to a contact approach however due to the factors already noted had convinced me that what we were doing was still the proper procedure. Suggestions: Ketchikan needs better RNAV approaches; or we need to use LPV rated planes going up there. There is an RNAV approach for 29; but it is only for LPV minimums; which we could not do. Had we been able to use that approach; or do a straight in to 11; none of this would have even come up as an issue. I also feel there could still to be better explanations for how to handle these approaches for people who are going up there for the first time. I had read through all of the documentation but I still did not feel very prepared for all the differences and what to expect when faced with these issues.
Second reporter narrative
I elected to fly the LOC X Rwy 11; circle to land 29. If I remember correctly the ceiling was reported around 5000 with visibility greater than 10 [miles]. Winds were somewhat strong out of the northwest favoring RW 29. 29 was the reported active runway. A mistake is that I looked at the circle to land 3300-3 as the weather minimum. That error led me to set the MDA and ALT alerter to the straight in MDA 1800 (1780 rounded up) instead of the 3300-3. The airport and the hills were in site at COGOX so I then turned to enter the left downwind. What happened: I ended up flying a contact approach that took me about 14 miles to the south. As I proceeded south; the ceiling came down some and I descended to the company VFR profile pattern altitude of 1600. I stayed over the water and followed the hills on my left around to where I got PAKT in sight and made the landing.Aside from my error on the circle to land minimum; prior to this occurrence I had got it in mind that somehow PAKT was a special case to circle outside the normal. Like some airports are accepted outside the stabilized straight in approach criteria because of close in terrain; noise abatement; and proximity to other types of restricted airspace; I had it in mind that PAKT was a unique place. Because how does one maneuver from above mountains at 3300 to near sea level within a few miles using normal maneuvers and rates of descent to land and while surrounded by other terrain? It's challenging enough over flat terrain from 1500 in the simulator. Not to mention we're supposed to make a straight in from X miles at XXX ft. per the guidance on the company charts.I've learned a lesson in not trying to help traffic situations; I should have just done the ILS for 11 with the appropriate cautions for the tailwind. I must do better at not letting notions build in my head that can be questionable. Plain and simple; I made a gross error. I must make myself know better. I am truly sorry and sick about this.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.