Narrative:

After completing an IFR currency flight to sby, I updated WX with the FSS on the field and filed to cgs, stating I would use the RNAV published approach. The FSS took my plan, filed it and, after checking, said there were no NOTAMS for cgs. I got my clearance from pxt and took off for cgs. Pxt handed me off to dca. Both controllers I worked with at dca knew I wanted the RNAV-15 to cgs and cleared me for that approach, which is the only published approach at cgs. I broke out at cgs at 700'--the MDA is 680'--and 1 1/2 mi visibility. I cancelled in the air with the runway in sight. At this point I was in uncontrolled airspace and I broke left before midfield, executing a close-in circle to land 15. A tight circle to land was necessary, so I would avoid the residential and industrial area. I circled left over a lake with the runway in sight and descended from 700-500' on base and s-turned on final for an altitude adjustment. I know my altitude at the breakout and circle to land was at least 700' because my radar altimeter was set to the MDA and it did not got off until I was on base. Later in the day, I was informed that the RNAV approach was fdc notamed as not authority/authorized. There is a lot of confusion about this NOTAM, as the one pxt controller, both dca controllers and the sby FSS believed the approach is authority/authorized, as I believed. I called the NOTAM office at the leesburg FSS and was told the approach was authority/authorized. Eventually, I tracked down the original NOTAM paperwork/filing, that was in the possession of a pilot at cgs, and discovered the approach is not authority/authorized. Instead of the system working to foster safer aviation, it appears to encourage confusion and potentially endanger lives.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA FLEW AN RNAV APCH TO CGS THAT WAS NOTAMED NA.

Narrative: AFTER COMPLETING AN IFR CURRENCY FLT TO SBY, I UPDATED WX WITH THE FSS ON THE FIELD AND FILED TO CGS, STATING I WOULD USE THE RNAV PUBLISHED APCH. THE FSS TOOK MY PLAN, FILED IT AND, AFTER CHKING, SAID THERE WERE NO NOTAMS FOR CGS. I GOT MY CLRNC FROM PXT AND TOOK OFF FOR CGS. PXT HANDED ME OFF TO DCA. BOTH CTLRS I WORKED WITH AT DCA KNEW I WANTED THE RNAV-15 TO CGS AND CLRED ME FOR THAT APCH, WHICH IS THE ONLY PUBLISHED APCH AT CGS. I BROKE OUT AT CGS AT 700'--THE MDA IS 680'--AND 1 1/2 MI VISIBILITY. I CANCELLED IN THE AIR WITH THE RWY IN SIGHT. AT THIS POINT I WAS IN UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE AND I BROKE LEFT BEFORE MIDFIELD, EXECUTING A CLOSE-IN CIRCLE TO LAND 15. A TIGHT CIRCLE TO LAND WAS NECESSARY, SO I WOULD AVOID THE RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA. I CIRCLED LEFT OVER A LAKE WITH THE RWY IN SIGHT AND DSNDED FROM 700-500' ON BASE AND S-TURNED ON FINAL FOR AN ALT ADJUSTMENT. I KNOW MY ALT AT THE BREAKOUT AND CIRCLE TO LAND WAS AT LEAST 700' BECAUSE MY RADAR ALTIMETER WAS SET TO THE MDA AND IT DID NOT GOT OFF UNTIL I WAS ON BASE. LATER IN THE DAY, I WAS INFORMED THAT THE RNAV APCH WAS FDC NOTAMED AS NOT AUTH. THERE IS A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THIS NOTAM, AS THE ONE PXT CTLR, BOTH DCA CTLRS AND THE SBY FSS BELIEVED THE APCH IS AUTH, AS I BELIEVED. I CALLED THE NOTAM OFFICE AT THE LEESBURG FSS AND WAS TOLD THE APCH WAS AUTH. EVENTUALLY, I TRACKED DOWN THE ORIGINAL NOTAM PAPERWORK/FILING, THAT WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF A PLT AT CGS, AND DISCOVERED THE APCH IS NOT AUTH. INSTEAD OF THE SYS WORKING TO FOSTER SAFER AVIATION, IT APPEARS TO ENCOURAGE CONFUSION AND POTENTIALLY ENDANGER LIVES.

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.