Narrative:

I was on an IFR flight plan at about XX00 local, making an ILS approach to runway 23 at fdk. I broke out of the overcast on the GS and localizer at about 1100 ft MSL (800 ft AGL) at about the same time the balance approach controller was terminating radar services, instructing me to squawk VFR code, and giving me permission to leave their frequency (133.0). I went to unicom frequency (123.0) and asked for a landing advisory, and was informed that fdk was landing on runway 5. AWOS had stated winds were light and the usual favored runway at fdk is runway 23. At this point I was about 600 ft AGL, in the clear and in a position for landing without any extreme maneuvers. At nearly the same time, I saw an aircraft, on the taxiway at the approach end of runway 5. He did not declare his intentions. In order to avoid any possible conflict, while still in total visual contact with the entire airport area, I decided to enter a right downwind (the usual pattern at fdk) for runway 5, and so announced my intentions on CTAF (123.0). There was no response from any other traffic. I was in clear conditions at all times, at an altitude of 600 ft AGL, completed downwind, base, final and landed without incident or conflict. The aircraft on the taxiway at the approach end of runway 05 was still in the same position. After landing and clearing the runway I called clearance delivery (126.9), told them I was on the ground and canceled my flight plan. I also gave them a pilot report that the ceiling at fdk was 600 ft AGL. Actually it was somewhat variable from 700-900 ft AGL, but I thought it best to give the slightly more conservative 600 ft figure. After my report, the aircraft on the ground, the identify of which I do not know, asked on the clearance delivery frequency, if I was aware of the circling to land minimums at fdk. They are 675 ft AGL. I informed the individual that I had chosen my option to preclude any possibility of confusion or conflict on his part, that I was in the clear and in a position to land at all times. We both ceased any further discussion, since the clearance delivery frequency should be clear. In retrospect, I probably could have learned from CTAF earlier what the favored runway (05) was, but I still would have broken out at 800 ft and begun my circle to land, since I was clear to land , since I was clear at 800 ft AGL. I don't think it is required that I not descend below circling minimums once I am in the clear above circling minimums, but have to descend to remain in the clear. The course I took was prudent in that it precluded any conflict with the other aircraft. Circling minimums, to be sure, were borderline, but probably the ceiling was at or above circling minimums, though when I gave my PIREP the ceiling I stated, to be conservative, was 75 ft below minimums. One other thing that comes to mind is, that it would be helpful if approach control could be knowledgeable about the runway being used at the airport of landing, and would so advise the pilots. AWOS, in this case, was not helpful in making this determination. Another point of interest is that no sooner had I landed than the aircraft on the taxiway took off on runway 05, and then in another minute or two another IFR aircraft landed on runway 23.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT MAKES CIRCLING APCH BELOW CIRCLING MINIMUMS.

Narrative: I WAS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN AT ABOUT XX00 LCL, MAKING AN ILS APCH TO RWY 23 AT FDK. I BROKE OUT OF THE OVCST ON THE GS AND LOC AT ABOUT 1100 FT MSL (800 FT AGL) AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE BAL APCH CTLR WAS TERMINATING RADAR SVCS, INSTRUCTING ME TO SQUAWK VFR CODE, AND GIVING ME PERMISSION TO LEAVE THEIR FREQ (133.0). I WENT TO UNICOM FREQ (123.0) AND ASKED FOR A LNDG ADVISORY, AND WAS INFORMED THAT FDK WAS LNDG ON RWY 5. AWOS HAD STATED WINDS WERE LIGHT AND THE USUAL FAVORED RWY AT FDK IS RWY 23. AT THIS POINT I WAS ABOUT 600 FT AGL, IN THE CLR AND IN A POS FOR LNDG WITHOUT ANY EXTREME MANEUVERS. AT NEARLY THE SAME TIME, I SAW AN ACFT, ON THE TXWY AT THE APCH END OF RWY 5. HE DID NOT DECLARE HIS INTENTIONS. IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY POSSIBLE CONFLICT, WHILE STILL IN TOTAL VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ENTIRE ARPT AREA, I DECIDED TO ENTER A R DOWNWIND (THE USUAL PATTERN AT FDK) FOR RWY 5, AND SO ANNOUNCED MY INTENTIONS ON CTAF (123.0). THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM ANY OTHER TFC. I WAS IN CLR CONDITIONS AT ALL TIMES, AT AN ALT OF 600 FT AGL, COMPLETED DOWNWIND, BASE, FINAL AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT OR CONFLICT. THE ACFT ON THE TXWY AT THE APCH END OF RWY 05 WAS STILL IN THE SAME POS. AFTER LNDG AND CLRING THE RWY I CALLED CLRNC DELIVERY (126.9), TOLD THEM I WAS ON THE GND AND CANCELED MY FLT PLAN. I ALSO GAVE THEM A PLT RPT THAT THE CEILING AT FDK WAS 600 FT AGL. ACTUALLY IT WAS SOMEWHAT VARIABLE FROM 700-900 FT AGL, BUT I THOUGHT IT BEST TO GIVE THE SLIGHTLY MORE CONSERVATIVE 600 FT FIGURE. AFTER MY RPT, THE ACFT ON THE GND, THE IDENT OF WHICH I DO NOT KNOW, ASKED ON THE CLRNC DELIVERY FREQ, IF I WAS AWARE OF THE CIRCLING TO LAND MINIMUMS AT FDK. THEY ARE 675 FT AGL. I INFORMED THE INDIVIDUAL THAT I HAD CHOSEN MY OPTION TO PRECLUDE ANY POSSIBILITY OF CONFUSION OR CONFLICT ON HIS PART, THAT I WAS IN THE CLR AND IN A POS TO LAND AT ALL TIMES. WE BOTH CEASED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, SINCE THE CLRNC DELIVERY FREQ SHOULD BE CLR. IN RETROSPECT, I PROBABLY COULD HAVE LEARNED FROM CTAF EARLIER WHAT THE FAVORED RWY (05) WAS, BUT I STILL WOULD HAVE BROKEN OUT AT 800 FT AND BEGUN MY CIRCLE TO LAND, SINCE I WAS CLR TO LAND , SINCE I WAS CLR AT 800 FT AGL. I DON'T THINK IT IS REQUIRED THAT I NOT DSND BELOW CIRCLING MINIMUMS ONCE I AM IN THE CLR ABOVE CIRCLING MINIMUMS, BUT HAVE TO DSND TO REMAIN IN THE CLR. THE COURSE I TOOK WAS PRUDENT IN THAT IT PRECLUDED ANY CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER ACFT. CIRCLING MINIMUMS, TO BE SURE, WERE BORDERLINE, BUT PROBABLY THE CEILING WAS AT OR ABOVE CIRCLING MINIMUMS, THOUGH WHEN I GAVE MY PIREP THE CEILING I STATED, TO BE CONSERVATIVE, WAS 75 FT BELOW MINIMUMS. ONE OTHER THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS, THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF APCH CTL COULD BE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE RWY BEING USED AT THE ARPT OF LNDG, AND WOULD SO ADVISE THE PLTS. AWOS, IN THIS CASE, WAS NOT HELPFUL IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION. ANOTHER POINT OF INTEREST IS THAT NO SOONER HAD I LANDED THAN THE ACFT ON THE TXWY TOOK OFF ON RWY 05, AND THEN IN ANOTHER MINUTE OR TWO ANOTHER IFR ACFT LANDED ON RWY 23.

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.