Narrative:

Here is the historical chain of events. While chatting with a fellow pilot at the FBO's front desk (tpf) I came across a posted FAA proposal to decommission and remove the airport's NDB which has been out of service; the proposal was seeking feedback from the flying public on the effects of such action. Later on I decided to take a closer look and possibly furnish a comment. I went online and downloaded all 4 published iaps for the airport and while reviewing and comparing the pros and cons I realized what had happened to me a few days earlier. I had indeed failed miserably to carefully read an approach plate during a high workload scenario; but if it could happen to me it could happen to other pilots as well. In fact; it also happened to the air traffic controller who was working me at the time of this occurrence. Three days earlier I flew an afternoon trip from tpf. Rain showers had been in the area throughout the day. The return 55-minute trip was to be around xa:00 the same evening when all of that rain would have drifted well to the east. Upon arrival; the terminal forecast for the nearby tpa airport was also calling for clear sky. I departed my destination a little late; around xa:40. When within reception range tpf AWOS was reporting a ceiling of about 800 or 900-ft overcast with visibility over 6 miles and wind from around 300 degrees at 5 knots. As center handed me over to approach control my autopilot decided to quit (note: I had the autopilot in for repair next morning.) my NOTAM print-out showed the tpf NDB to be out of service (eliminating the NDB-a approach from the choices). A second NOTAM showed the category-B circling minimums for the GPS runway 21 and for the NDB runway 3 to be 760 ft MSL due to a crane located 1.3 nautical miles east of runway 35. Making a circling approach at night on a wet runway was not and would not have been the best choice when there are straight-in options with lower minimums. I made contact with approach and hand-flew the airplane while taking out the IAP binder. A preliminary comparison of category-B approach minimums for my aircraft showed that GPS runway 35 had the lowest straight-in minimums (500 ft MSL); however considering that it is short (lda 2400 ft) and probably still wet; I gravitated towards the longer runway 3-21. Since the wind was a direct crosswind on runway 3-21; then either way I could have made a straight-in approach and landing from either direction. I then examined the NDB runway 3 procedure and glanced at the remarks section: circling to the northwest of runway 3-21 is not authorized which was obviously true for the rest of the procedures; and circling to runway 17 is na (but is allowed for runways 35 and 21). Please note that the 2nd NDB approach (for runway 3) at tpf is predicated on an off-site NDB (picny). Because picny NDB is at the approach/departure corridor of tpa (tampa international airport) and the approach course overflies mcf (mcdill air force base) this approach is almost never made available because it interrupts operations at tpa and also due to national security reasons at mcf; home of the us central command; headquarters on the current wars overseas. Because of these reasons and because the minimums of runway 21 were slightly lower (620 on runway 21 versus 640 ft MSL on runway 3) mentally the NDB runway 3 became not a good candidate and therefore I chose to request the more reliable GPS to runway 21; however; I missed a vital clue: straight-in/circling runway 21 na at night. This statement is buried in the middle of everything else. All this while been vectored and/or during the descent. When I made initial contact with ATC I requested the GPS 21 'because of the lower straight-in minimums'. The controller mentioned that the straight-in GPS for runway 35 had the lowest minimum (MDA of 500 ft MSL). I responded something like: 'I'd rather get a straight-in for the longer runway'. He issued vectors and further descent and eventually cleared me forthe GPS 21 approach along with a frequency change to unicom. I thought I had done a good job with my decision and for being conservative. What a fool I am… as I was joining the final approach course there was a break in the overcast so I completed the final segment virtually in VMC and made a landing on runway 21; which was still wet. I cancelled IFR on the ground and went about my business. Complacency sets in because there is seldom any weather around tpf to warrant execution (and review) of an instrument approach and this prohibitive remark must have been introduced within the last year but I failed to notice it. Following an autopilot failure; hand flying in the terminal area robbed me from having taken a better look at the approach plates. In support of my comments I have included additional attachments for your review. I also contacted the owner of the FBO to share my story and he was totally unaware that this procedure is not available at night. His comment was: this is the 'procedure of choice for anyone who lands in here; especially at night'. I encouraged him to make a posting to alert local pilots who use this procedure. The lack of full standardization when presenting information on approach plates is also a factor. A stand-alone familiar remark 'procedure na at night' at the beginning of the remarks would have probably prevented this event. It's hard to notice the buried small print in a dim cockpit. The sharp air traffic controller missed it too. Is the prohibition of a straight-in GPS to runway 21 at night a fluke when a night circling approach to runway 21 is allowed when executing the NDB runway 3 IAP?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A pilot reported that approach plate text describing a night time circling constraint to TPF Runway 21 was not seen by him until after completing the procedure. He and other pilots based at TPF did not know about it.

Narrative: Here is the historical chain of events. While chatting with a fellow pilot at the FBO's front desk (TPF) I came across a posted FAA proposal to decommission and remove the airport's NDB which has been out of service; the proposal was seeking feedback from the flying public on the effects of such action. Later on I decided to take a closer look and possibly furnish a comment. I went online and downloaded all 4 published IAPs for the airport and while reviewing and comparing the pros and cons I realized what had happened to me a few days earlier. I had indeed failed miserably to carefully read an approach plate during a high workload scenario; but if it could happen to me it could happen to other pilots as well. In fact; it also happened to the Air Traffic Controller who was working me at the time of this occurrence. Three days earlier I flew an afternoon trip from TPF. Rain showers had been in the area throughout the day. The return 55-minute trip was to be around XA:00 the same evening when all of that rain would have drifted well to the East. Upon arrival; the terminal forecast for the nearby TPA airport was also calling for clear sky. I departed my destination a little late; around XA:40. When within reception range TPF AWOS was reporting a ceiling of about 800 or 900-FT overcast with visibility over 6 miles and wind from around 300 degrees at 5 knots. As Center handed me over to Approach Control my autopilot decided to quit (Note: I had the autopilot in for repair next morning.) My NOTAM print-out showed the TPF NDB to be out of service (eliminating the NDB-A approach from the choices). A second NOTAM showed the category-B circling minimums for the GPS Runway 21 and for the NDB Runway 3 to be 760 FT MSL due to a crane located 1.3 nautical miles East of Runway 35. Making a circling approach at night on a wet runway was not and would not have been the best choice when there are straight-in options with lower minimums. I made contact with Approach and hand-flew the airplane while taking out the IAP binder. A preliminary comparison of category-B approach minimums for my aircraft showed that GPS Runway 35 had the lowest straight-in minimums (500 FT MSL); however considering that it is short (LDA 2400 FT) and probably still wet; I gravitated towards the longer Runway 3-21. Since the wind was a direct crosswind on Runway 3-21; then either way I could have made a straight-in approach and landing from either direction. I then examined the NDB Runway 3 procedure and glanced at the remarks section: circling to the Northwest of Runway 3-21 is not authorized which was obviously true for the rest of the procedures; and circling to Runway 17 is NA (but is ALLOWED for Runways 35 and 21). Please note that the 2nd NDB approach (for Runway 3) at TPF is predicated on an off-site NDB (Picny). Because Picny NDB is at the approach/departure corridor of TPA (Tampa International Airport) and the approach course overflies MCF (McDill Air Force Base) this approach is almost never made available because it interrupts operations at TPA and also due to National Security reasons at MCF; home of the US Central Command; headquarters on the current wars overseas. Because of these reasons and because the minimums of Runway 21 were slightly lower (620 on Runway 21 versus 640 FT MSL on Runway 3) mentally the NDB Runway 3 became not a good candidate and therefore I chose to request the more reliable GPS to Runway 21; however; I missed a vital clue: straight-in/circling Runway 21 NA at night. This statement is buried in the middle of everything else. All this while been vectored and/or during the descent. When I made initial contact with ATC I requested the GPS 21 'because of the lower straight-in minimums'. The controller mentioned that the straight-in GPS for Runway 35 had the LOWEST minimum (MDA of 500 FT MSL). I responded something like: 'I'd rather get a straight-in for the longer runway'. He issued vectors and further descent and eventually cleared me forthe GPS 21 approach along with a frequency change to Unicom. I thought I had done a good job with my decision and for being conservative. What a fool I am… As I was joining the Final Approach Course there was a break in the overcast so I completed the final segment virtually in VMC and made a landing on Runway 21; which was still wet. I cancelled IFR on the ground and went about my business. Complacency sets in because there is seldom any weather around TPF to warrant execution (and review) of an instrument approach and this prohibitive remark must have been introduced within the last year but I failed to notice it. Following an autopilot failure; hand flying in the terminal area robbed me from having taken a better look at the approach plates. In support of my comments I have included additional attachments for your review. I also contacted the owner of the FBO to share my story and he was totally unaware that this procedure is not available at night. His comment was: this is the 'procedure of choice for anyone who lands in here; especially at night'. I encouraged him to make a posting to alert local pilots who use this procedure. The lack of FULL standardization when presenting information on approach plates is also a factor. A stand-alone familiar remark 'Procedure NA at night' at the BEGINNING of the remarks would have probably prevented this event. It's hard to notice the buried small print in a dim cockpit. The sharp Air Traffic Controller missed it too. Is the prohibition of a straight-in GPS to Runway 21 at night a fluke when a night circling approach to Runway 21 is allowed when executing the NDB Runway 3 IAP?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.