Narrative:

I was on a 2-LEG IFR flight plan from lexington, ky, to rockford, il, to ashland, wi (asx), and obtained FSS briefings before each leg. For the latter flight, the briefer reported that NOTAMS for asx included 'approach lights out of service'. En route to asx, the center controller also gave the identical wording for the NOTAM, as I was preparing for an approach at night under IFR conditions. I commented to the controller that although the approach lights were out, I hoped that the beacon and runway lights were ok. He replied that no comment about them were in the NOTAMS. He then cleared me for the approach. The VOR approach to asx was unsuccessful, as the airport had no lights at all. After diverting to my alternate, ironwood, mi, for their ILS approach, I talked to green bay radio on their remote at ironwood, to report no lights at the asx airport. They commented that the NOTAM already reported 'airport lighting OTS', and that the abbreviation for this, 'apl OTS', is frequently misread as relating to approach lighting rather than the airport itself. Although no adverse event occurred, I was misinformed by 2 specialists about an important condition concerning my flight, namely complete absence of lighting at an airport to which I was heading during low IFR conditions at night. Their error was the misreading of an important abbreviation, which I was told is not uncommon. The lesson here I believe is the use of abbreviations relating to conditions that may be critical to the safety of a flight. Important information should not be conveyed by ambiguous abbreviations. At the very least, the abbreviation 'apl' for airport lighting should be abandoned, perhaps for the alternative 'airport lgts' if abbreviations must be used.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT TOLD APCH LIGHTS NOTAMED OTS. ACTUALLY ALL ARPT LIGHTS OTS.

Narrative: I WAS ON A 2-LEG IFR FLT PLAN FROM LEXINGTON, KY, TO ROCKFORD, IL, TO ASHLAND, WI (ASX), AND OBTAINED FSS BRIEFINGS BEFORE EACH LEG. FOR THE LATTER FLT, THE BRIEFER RPTED THAT NOTAMS FOR ASX INCLUDED 'APCH LIGHTS OUT OF SVC'. ENRTE TO ASX, THE CENTER CTLR ALSO GAVE THE IDENTICAL WORDING FOR THE NOTAM, AS I WAS PREPARING FOR AN APCH AT NIGHT UNDER IFR CONDITIONS. I COMMENTED TO THE CTLR THAT ALTHOUGH THE APCH LIGHTS WERE OUT, I HOPED THAT THE BEACON AND RWY LIGHTS WERE OK. HE REPLIED THAT NO COMMENT ABOUT THEM WERE IN THE NOTAMS. HE THEN CLRED ME FOR THE APCH. THE VOR APCH TO ASX WAS UNSUCCESSFUL, AS THE ARPT HAD NO LIGHTS AT ALL. AFTER DIVERTING TO MY ALTERNATE, IRONWOOD, MI, FOR THEIR ILS APCH, I TALKED TO GREEN BAY RADIO ON THEIR REMOTE AT IRONWOOD, TO RPT NO LIGHTS AT THE ASX ARPT. THEY COMMENTED THAT THE NOTAM ALREADY RPTED 'ARPT LIGHTING OTS', AND THAT THE ABBREVIATION FOR THIS, 'APL OTS', IS FREQUENTLY MISREAD AS RELATING TO APCH LIGHTING RATHER THAN THE ARPT ITSELF. ALTHOUGH NO ADVERSE EVENT OCCURRED, I WAS MISINFORMED BY 2 SPECIALISTS ABOUT AN IMPORTANT CONDITION CONCERNING MY FLT, NAMELY COMPLETE ABSENCE OF LIGHTING AT AN ARPT TO WHICH I WAS HDG DURING LOW IFR CONDITIONS AT NIGHT. THEIR ERROR WAS THE MISREADING OF AN IMPORTANT ABBREVIATION, WHICH I WAS TOLD IS NOT UNCOMMON. THE LESSON HERE I BELIEVE IS THE USE OF ABBREVIATIONS RELATING TO CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CRITICAL TO THE SAFETY OF A FLT. IMPORTANT INFO SHOULD NOT BE CONVEYED BY AMBIGUOUS ABBREVIATIONS. AT THE VERY LEAST, THE ABBREVIATION 'APL' FOR ARPT LIGHTING SHOULD BE ABANDONED, PERHAPS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE 'ARPT LGTS' IF ABBREVIATIONS MUST BE USED.

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.