GA pilot discovers; after the fact; that the minimums have been changed at lvk by NOTAM.

Attributes
ACN	767453
Time
Date	200712
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lvk.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl single value : 1000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : lvk.tower
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft High Wing 1 Eng Retractable Gear
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	flight crew : single pilot oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : flight engineer pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 35 flight time total : 5000 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	767453
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : overshoot inflight encounter : weather non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Supplementary
Problem Areas	FAA Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

I was flying as PIC under the hood and had a safety pilot. I briefed the approach with a circle altitude of 940 ft MSL which is what is published on the chart. We were executing the ILS runway 25R approach with a circle to land on runway 7. The cloud bottoms were ragged and a reported ceiling of 1700 ft broken and 800 ft scattered. We continue the approach. At 1200 ft MSL; I asked the safety pilot how we were doing. He replied that he saw nothing. I started to prepare myself for a go around. We continued the approach and broke out at approximately 1050 ft MSL. I was not sure of the exact altitude and I reported breaking out at 1000 ft MSL to the tower. It was only on the postflt debrief that I learned that there was an fdc NOTAM for a circle to land minimum increasing it from 940 ft to 1060 ft. Earlier in the day; I had briefed the straight-in increase in the decision ht but had not briefed the increase in the circle to land. I would recommend better and more user friendly formatting in the fdc NOTAMS. The use of bolding or paragraph spacing for each type of approach that has an fdc NOTAM would prevent them from being lost in the text. By making them stand out better; they are less likely to be missed in future preflight briefs.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA PILOT DISCOVERS; AFTER THE FACT; THAT THE MINIMUMS HAVE BEEN CHANGED AT LVK BY NOTAM.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING AS PIC UNDER THE HOOD AND HAD A SAFETY PLT. I BRIEFED THE APCH WITH A CIRCLE ALT OF 940 FT MSL WHICH IS WHAT IS PUBLISHED ON THE CHART. WE WERE EXECUTING THE ILS RWY 25R APCH WITH A CIRCLE TO LAND ON RWY 7. THE CLOUD BOTTOMS WERE RAGGED AND A RPTED CEILING OF 1700 FT BROKEN AND 800 FT SCATTERED. WE CONTINUE THE APCH. AT 1200 FT MSL; I ASKED THE SAFETY PLT HOW WE WERE DOING. HE REPLIED THAT HE SAW NOTHING. I STARTED TO PREPARE MYSELF FOR A GAR. WE CONTINUED THE APCH AND BROKE OUT AT APPROX 1050 FT MSL. I WAS NOT SURE OF THE EXACT ALT AND I RPTED BREAKING OUT AT 1000 FT MSL TO THE TWR. IT WAS ONLY ON THE POSTFLT DEBRIEF THAT I LEARNED THAT THERE WAS AN FDC NOTAM FOR A CIRCLE TO LAND MINIMUM INCREASING IT FROM 940 FT TO 1060 FT. EARLIER IN THE DAY; I HAD BRIEFED THE STRAIGHT-IN INCREASE IN THE DECISION HT BUT HAD NOT BRIEFED THE INCREASE IN THE CIRCLE TO LAND. I WOULD RECOMMEND BETTER AND MORE USER FRIENDLY FORMATTING IN THE FDC NOTAMS. THE USE OF BOLDING OR PARAGRAPH SPACING FOR EACH TYPE OF APCH THAT HAS AN FDC NOTAM WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM BEING LOST IN THE TEXT. BY MAKING THEM STAND OUT BETTER; THEY ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE MISSED IN FUTURE PREFLT BRIEFS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.