Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Downloaded paperwork for flight. Flight was routine till approach and descent into ZZZ. Enroute; I reviewed the mountain flying guide and 10-7 pages for approach to Runway XX. A note in the flight plan - Dispatcher remarks - was also reviewed: Runway XY not authorized for Airbus aircraft at night. We planned and briefed night visual backed up by the ILS Runway XX with a long straight in final. Talking to Approach; descending through 13;700; [Approach] asked if we had airport in sight. We did and they cleared us for the visual to Runway XX. Abeam/over [the] airport; [we were] told to contact Tower. Tower offered a right downwind to Runway XY [but] we declined because of the note from Dispatch stating [that] landing on XY [was] not authorized at night. We had good visibility and could see the outlines of the mountains from the full moon through the thin overcast. Captain continued to fly up the valley and proceeded to do a left 180 degree turn at approximately 10 DME from airport with ground contact and visual reference to the airport. I monitored the PFD (Primary Flight Display) and terrain clearances during the turn and we were above all terrain; green on PFD during the course reversal. We configured early and proceeded with an uneventful landing.Once on ground we debriefed the arrival and both agreed that we should have taken vectors to final or just requested the ILS to Runway XX. We both assumed that Approach would have provided assistance; vectors to final; per the 10-7 pages. I know we have the final say and should have just done a go around toward the airport and contacted Approach for a vectored ILS approach.


Second narrative: We had planned and briefed a night visual/ILS into Runway XX. Our plan was a long straight-in approach over either fix ZZZZZ; 25 NM; or ZZZZZ1; 17.5 NM. About 3 NM south of ZZZ; we had been descended from 15;000 ft. We leveled off at 11;000 ft.; near the grid MORAs of 10.6 to north; 10.8 to south; and 9.2 to west; descending through the thin ceiling around 13;800 ft. Approach Control asked if we had the airport in sight; which we did. They then cleared us for a visual approach to Runway XX and to switch Tower frequency. The visibility was exceptional and we continued northwest up the valley towards ZZZZZ1. [The] altitude recommended at ZZZZZ1 is NLT (No Later Than) 8;600 ft. with a continuous 3 degree glideslope to the runway from there. We descended to 8;600 ft. Using ground references we did a 180 degree U-turn/teardrop and proceeded to an uneventful landing. Initial turn had us too high so a return to the northwest and second U-turn/teardrop put us on an acceptable profile.In retrospect; the maneuvering of the aircraft in that fairly tight valley; at night; even knowing the floor was 3;600 ft. plus or minus; and keeping good situational awareness of the nearby higher terrain; was unwise. We should have maintained as briefed/planned and asked ATC for vectors to either ZZZZZ; ZZZZZ1 or to a point to intercept the straight-in ILS XX.The 10-7 pages recommend this 'vector to a straight-in approach.' We both; the FO (First Officer) and I; assumed that Approach was going to provide that assistance; which the 10-7C page states is normally provided. The 10-7 pages also state that maneuvering space is tight; which we verified; but there is some room; providing airspeed is kept low; altitude is kept reasonably high; [and] awareness is kept extremely high. The 10-7 pages get confusing and seem ambiguous or contradictory at times. The 10-7D illustrates a visual approach into Runway XX; not to be used at night; maneuvering the aircraft in the valley northwest of the airport; when the 10-7 states that all maneuvering must be done south-southwest of the runways?Our flight plan added to the confusion; [stating]; 'Runway XY not authorized with Airbus aircraft at night.' Yet the 10-7A page illustrates options for Runway XY VMC landings. Runway XY was in sight with plenty of time for us to maneuver south-southwest of the runways and land Runway XY with favorable winds.I believe at ZZZ1; it states [that] for Runway XZ; visual approaches at night are prohibited for Airbus aircraft. ILS only. A similar note for ZZZ would alleviate much of the confusion. The ZZZ 10-7 pages can be misinterpreted; especially when our Dispatcher; whose data should be more current than those 10-7 pages; records no visual approach to Runway XY at night. Uneventful approach and landing; but a good lesson relearned about not allowing ATC to paint us into a corner.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported confusing airport charts and lack of ATC assistance on approach.