Narrative:

Pwm ILS 11 CAT I published minimums 274 ft (200 ft). ATIS pwm NOTAM: due to crane, decision ht runway 11 374 ft. I briefed approach setting barometric altimeter bug at 274 ft and radio bug at 374 ft, go missed at first indication. Captain said no, set 374 ft barometric altimeter bug and 200 ft radio. We did and broke out at minimums for an uneventful landing. Upon reflection: 1) NOTAM is nonstandard and begs to be misinterpreted. Should say: new minimums 374 ft (300 ft). Can't confuse this. 2) given the poor NOTAM, we should have set bugs as I briefed. 3) we flew below the NOTAM'ed minimums without runway in sight. Nothing happened, nothing damaged and nobody hurt! However, the tower FAA people should know the proper format and terminology for a NOTAM! There is a significant difference between decision altitude and decision ht (the captain and crew should know this). If we had not been exactly on localizer course, we could have collided with the crane 1/4 mi south of the runway 11 threshold. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he consulted his company operations regarding the NOTAM and they agreed that it was issued poorly. They indicated they would do follow-up with FAA and try to get it corrected with 2 figures issued, decision ht and decision altitude. The reporter, the first officer was following the company procedures for use of the barometric altimeter and the radio altimeter. Reporter has not been back to pwm since this incident and does not know what, if any, changes may have been made.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT FLC CONFUSED REGARDING NOTAM ISSUED FOR LNDG RWY MAKES LNDG BELOW NOTAM MINIMUMS.

Narrative: PWM ILS 11 CAT I PUBLISHED MINIMUMS 274 FT (200 FT). ATIS PWM NOTAM: DUE TO CRANE, DECISION HT RWY 11 374 FT. I BRIEFED APCH SETTING BAROMETRIC ALTIMETER BUG AT 274 FT AND RADIO BUG AT 374 FT, GO MISSED AT FIRST INDICATION. CAPT SAID NO, SET 374 FT BAROMETRIC ALTIMETER BUG AND 200 FT RADIO. WE DID AND BROKE OUT AT MINIMUMS FOR AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. UPON REFLECTION: 1) NOTAM IS NONSTANDARD AND BEGS TO BE MISINTERPRETED. SHOULD SAY: NEW MINIMUMS 374 FT (300 FT). CAN'T CONFUSE THIS. 2) GIVEN THE POOR NOTAM, WE SHOULD HAVE SET BUGS AS I BRIEFED. 3) WE FLEW BELOW THE NOTAM'ED MINIMUMS WITHOUT RWY IN SIGHT. NOTHING HAPPENED, NOTHING DAMAGED AND NOBODY HURT! HOWEVER, THE TWR FAA PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THE PROPER FORMAT AND TERMINOLOGY FOR A NOTAM! THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BTWN DECISION ALT AND DECISION HT (THE CAPT AND CREW SHOULD KNOW THIS). IF WE HAD NOT BEEN EXACTLY ON LOC COURSE, WE COULD HAVE COLLIDED WITH THE CRANE 1/4 MI S OF THE RWY 11 THRESHOLD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE CONSULTED HIS COMPANY OPS REGARDING THE NOTAM AND THEY AGREED THAT IT WAS ISSUED POORLY. THEY INDICATED THEY WOULD DO FOLLOW-UP WITH FAA AND TRY TO GET IT CORRECTED WITH 2 FIGURES ISSUED, DECISION HT AND DECISION ALT. THE RPTR, THE FO WAS FOLLOWING THE COMPANY PROCS FOR USE OF THE BAROMETRIC ALTIMETER AND THE RADIO ALTIMETER. RPTR HAS NOT BEEN BACK TO PWM SINCE THIS INCIDENT AND DOES NOT KNOW WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES MAY HAVE BEEN MADE.

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.