LJ55 PIC, after conducting an ILS runway 26L approach to poc airport, discovers that category C and ...

Attributes
ACN	563788
Time
Date	200210
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : poc.airport
State Reference	CA
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : sct.tracon tower : poc.tower tracon : p31.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Learjet 55
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : instrument precision
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 70 flight time total : 9000 flight time type : 1700
ASRS Report	563788
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : insufficient time
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Chart Or Publication FAA Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

During part 135 check ride, I realized that brackett (poc) ILS was approved for only a & B aircraft. In visual conditions, we accepted an ILS approach clearance to poc and shot the approach. ATC and tower were both aware of missed approach only desired by flight crew. We are uncertain if any rules were broken. There were no conflicts or questions by ATC or tower. I am requesting clarification from local FSDO. Can a category C aircraft accept clearance to an approach when only a & B aircraft have landing minimums? Do visual conditions change approach criteria? We did not advise airport in sight and requested visual approach. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter has not received direction or interpretation from FAA or company. Reporter questions whether approach is authority/authorized to issue the approach clearance for his type aircraft, or if issued an approach clearance, WX tower is authority/authorized to issue a landing clearance. Supplemental callback conversation revealed the following information: FSDO inspector familiar with poc operations advised that category C and category D landing minima is 'not applicable' because of restr tower operating hours, runway length restrs, and ILS component interference, caused by a local public activity -- poc drag strip. Instead of publishing an ILS operating restr, the FAA decided to implement a 'not applicable' for category C and category D aircraft. The airport has had a few accidents with this category aircraft at this airport in the past.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LJ55 PIC, AFTER CONDUCTING AN ILS RWY 26L APCH TO POC ARPT, DISCOVERS THAT CATEGORY C AND CATEGORY D ACFT DO NOT HAVE PUBLISHED LNDG MINIMA. RPTR QUESTIONS IF THERE IS AN FAR VIOLATION.

Narrative: DURING PART 135 CHK RIDE, I REALIZED THAT BRACKETT (POC) ILS WAS APPROVED FOR ONLY A & B ACFT. IN VISUAL CONDITIONS, WE ACCEPTED AN ILS APCH CLRNC TO POC AND SHOT THE APCH. ATC AND TWR WERE BOTH AWARE OF MISSED APCH ONLY DESIRED BY FLC. WE ARE UNCERTAIN IF ANY RULES WERE BROKEN. THERE WERE NO CONFLICTS OR QUESTIONS BY ATC OR TWR. I AM REQUESTING CLARIFICATION FROM LCL FSDO. CAN A CATEGORY C ACFT ACCEPT CLRNC TO AN APCH WHEN ONLY A & B ACFT HAVE LNDG MINIMUMS? DO VISUAL CONDITIONS CHANGE APCH CRITERIA? WE DID NOT ADVISE ARPT IN SIGHT AND REQUESTED VISUAL APCH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR HAS NOT RECEIVED DIRECTION OR INTERP FROM FAA OR COMPANY. RPTR QUESTIONS WHETHER APCH IS AUTH TO ISSUE THE APCH CLRNC FOR HIS TYPE ACFT, OR IF ISSUED AN APCH CLRNC, WX TWR IS AUTH TO ISSUE A LNDG CLRNC. SUPPLEMENTAL CALLBACK CONVERSATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: FSDO INSPECTOR FAMILIAR WITH POC OPS ADVISED THAT CATEGORY C AND CATEGORY D LNDG MINIMA IS 'NOT APPLICABLE' BECAUSE OF RESTR TWR OPERATING HRS, RWY LENGTH RESTRS, AND ILS COMPONENT INTERFERENCE, CAUSED BY A LCL PUBLIC ACTIVITY -- POC DRAG STRIP. INSTEAD OF PUBLISHING AN ILS OPERATING RESTR, THE FAA DECIDED TO IMPLEMENT A 'NOT APPLICABLE' FOR CATEGORY C AND CATEGORY D ACFT. THE ARPT HAS HAD A FEW ACCIDENTS WITH THIS CATEGORY ACFT AT THIS ARPT IN THE PAST.

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.

LJ55 PIC, after conducting an ILS runway 26L approach to poc airport, discovers that category C and category D aircraft do not have published landing minima. Reporter questions if there is an far violation.