Narrative:

I was making an instrument flight into gww from sms. The preflight WX briefing prior to takeoff indicated VFR conditions except for fog/mist with low ceilings at the destination. The instrument approach procedures book (IAP) I use are the department of defense version and not the nos version. The requirement for including an airport is not whether there exists an FAA approved approach, but whether or not the military service requests the airport be included. My iaps were current, but did not include goldsboro as it apparently is not a military service requirement. Therefore, I obtained a verbal description of the approach (NDB runway 23) and made a sketch of the approach's relevant parts. (A photocopy machine was not available.) since I was 'rusty' on NDB approachs, I increased the minimum descent altitude from the stated 560 ft to 750 ft as a personal cushion. The flight went normally and I was vectored onto the final approach course by seymour johnson approach control. The WX was not available at goldsboro (no control tower), but seymour johnson (about 5 mi away) was reporting approximately 700 ft ceilings with 1700 ft tops and better than 1 mi visibility. In anticipation of not being able to land, I made arrangements with seymour to return to sumter airport, they changed the missed approach procedures to maintain runway heading and climb to 3000 ft. My course control was right on the money, but I had not descended fast enough. Consequently when I broke out of the overcast at 750-800 ft, I was too close to the runway to execute a straight-in landing. The visibility under the overcast was good, and I executed a 360 degree circling approach to the right and landed on runway 23 with no difficulty. At no time did I take my eyes off the runway except when looking at the instrument panel to perform normal pre-landing checks. Upon taxiing up, I was met by an FAA maintenance inspector who had observed the approach and circle. He expressed concern regarding the circle to land and wanted to see a copy of the approach plate to verify the circle minimums. I showed him what I had, but my sketch did not include circle minimums (which are available at the same altitude) as I had not gotten that information as that was not one of my planned options. Admittedly, my sketch was sparse, but contained the bare minimum necessary to execute this particular approach and in these particular conditions (eg, flat terrain, relatively benign WX). I can't change the DOD FLIP requirements and don't want to try. But I can make more complete sketches if that will satisfy the letter of the FARS or, better still, find a photocopy machine.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT USING HAND DRAWN APCH CHART MAKES A LOW CIRCLING APCH. FAA INSPECTOR OBSERVER QUESTIONS HIS PROCS.

Narrative: I WAS MAKING AN INST FLT INTO GWW FROM SMS. THE PREFLT WX BRIEFING PRIOR TO TKOF INDICATED VFR CONDITIONS EXCEPT FOR FOG/MIST WITH LOW CEILINGS AT THE DEST. THE INST APCH PROCS BOOK (IAP) I USE ARE THE DEPT OF DEFENSE VERSION AND NOT THE NOS VERSION. THE REQUIREMENT FOR INCLUDING AN ARPT IS NOT WHETHER THERE EXISTS AN FAA APPROVED APCH, BUT WHETHER OR NOT THE MIL SVC REQUESTS THE ARPT BE INCLUDED. MY IAPS WERE CURRENT, BUT DID NOT INCLUDE GOLDSBORO AS IT APPARENTLY IS NOT A MIL SVC REQUIREMENT. THEREFORE, I OBTAINED A VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF THE APCH (NDB RWY 23) AND MADE A SKETCH OF THE APCH'S RELEVANT PARTS. (A PHOTOCOPY MACHINE WAS NOT AVAILABLE.) SINCE I WAS 'RUSTY' ON NDB APCHS, I INCREASED THE MINIMUM DSCNT ALT FROM THE STATED 560 FT TO 750 FT AS A PERSONAL CUSHION. THE FLT WENT NORMALLY AND I WAS VECTORED ONTO THE FINAL APCH COURSE BY SEYMOUR JOHNSON APCH CTL. THE WX WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT GOLDSBORO (NO CTL TWR), BUT SEYMOUR JOHNSON (ABOUT 5 MI AWAY) WAS RPTING APPROX 700 FT CEILINGS WITH 1700 FT TOPS AND BETTER THAN 1 MI VISIBILITY. IN ANTICIPATION OF NOT BEING ABLE TO LAND, I MADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH SEYMOUR TO RETURN TO SUMTER ARPT, THEY CHANGED THE MISSED APCH PROCS TO MAINTAIN RWY HDG AND CLB TO 3000 FT. MY COURSE CTL WAS RIGHT ON THE MONEY, BUT I HAD NOT DSNDED FAST ENOUGH. CONSEQUENTLY WHEN I BROKE OUT OF THE OVCST AT 750-800 FT, I WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE RWY TO EXECUTE A STRAIGHT-IN LNDG. THE VISIBILITY UNDER THE OVCST WAS GOOD, AND I EXECUTED A 360 DEG CIRCLING APCH TO THE R AND LANDED ON RWY 23 WITH NO DIFFICULTY. AT NO TIME DID I TAKE MY EYES OFF THE RWY EXCEPT WHEN LOOKING AT THE INST PANEL TO PERFORM NORMAL PRE-LNDG CHKS. UPON TAXIING UP, I WAS MET BY AN FAA MAINT INSPECTOR WHO HAD OBSERVED THE APCH AND CIRCLE. HE EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING THE CIRCLE TO LAND AND WANTED TO SEE A COPY OF THE APCH PLATE TO VERIFY THE CIRCLE MINIMUMS. I SHOWED HIM WHAT I HAD, BUT MY SKETCH DID NOT INCLUDE CIRCLE MINIMUMS (WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SAME ALT) AS I HAD NOT GOTTEN THAT INFO AS THAT WAS NOT ONE OF MY PLANNED OPTIONS. ADMITTEDLY, MY SKETCH WAS SPARSE, BUT CONTAINED THE BARE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO EXECUTE THIS PARTICULAR APCH AND IN THESE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS (EG, FLAT TERRAIN, RELATIVELY BENIGN WX). I CAN'T CHANGE THE DOD FLIP REQUIREMENTS AND DON'T WANT TO TRY. BUT I CAN MAKE MORE COMPLETE SKETCHES IF THAT WILL SATISFY THE LETTER OF THE FARS OR, BETTER STILL, FIND A PHOTOCOPY MACHINE.

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.