Narrative:

Tower (local control) advised of an altitude alert and informed that the minimum instrument altitude for our location was 1300 ft MSL. The tower of course was correct, how did this occur? Orf was not the original destination. It was in fact the third airport utilized, the only with an ILS. The first airport was sfq. This was the original destination. However, upon arrival, the only approach NAVAID (NDB) was inoperative. Approach control was not aware the facility was inoperative and there were no NOTAMS to that effect. NOTAM information was carefully checked before departure from kinston, nc. The flight diverted to cpk for the localizer 5 approach. 2 approachs were made at cpk, both ending in missed approachs. Several interesting items about the cpk airport/approach: 1) the runway lights remain on the old CTAF of 122.7 while the new CTAF of 123.05 is notamed via the AWOS. Of course the entire information is a local and not a distant NOTAM. Yet the AWOS verbally tells you to use 123.05 as the CTAF and is mute on the different frequency for runway lights. 2) the localizer runway 5 approach plate for cpk idents the NDB identify as 'eyk' (chesi). However, the aircraft was receiving 'ey,' no 'K' was being received. This now is the second NDB NAVAID with reception problems. The flight diverted to orf for the ILS runway 5. The aircraft is equipped with 2 ILS receivers, each with GS. Upon receiving approach clearance we became established on the localizer and handed off to tower. We were inside 'caley,' had a full up GS on navigation #1, a centered GS on navigation #2, and an ADF bearing toward the tail. Analysis (faulty) inside FAF (ingle) and on glide path. The truth was GS #2 was inoperative. GS #1 was accurate and the ADF was not working properly. Since we were well above the MDA for the approach I had not intervened, and the PIC salvaged the approach to an uneventful conclusion. Contributing factors: 1) suffolk, va, NDB is not idented as unmonitored if the ground transmitter was inoperative (which it was and had been before we departed kinston, nc). The approach plate should advise as unmonitored. 2) chesapeake, va, localizer runway 5 approach plate idents the CTAF as 122.7 and instructs to activate lighting on 122.7. However, the AWOS instructions NOTAM the CTAF to 123.05 and is mute on the lighting. This is a local NOTAM via FSS and if one had received the FSS local NOTAM and subsequently received the NOTAM via AWOS, which frequency for lighting would be the most current? Why is the airport lighting frequency not part of the AWOS NOTAM information? P.south. Why is cpk parachute jumping activities listed as a local NOTAM for norfolk? 3) chesi (eyk) NDB identifier shown on the approach plate should be accurate, or at least notamed until the plate or the transmitter is corrected. Corrective actions: 1) the PIC learned to verify GS intercept altitude shown on the approach plate. 2) the marker beacon system was working and obviously the ADF system was inaccurate. 3) when an error exists between 2 instruments (GS), investigate rather than assume. Need to utilize all or at least additional information prior to final determination.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TWR ALERTED FLC OF LOW ALT ALERT WHEN THEY WERE ON ILS APCH. PF'S GS INDICATED FULL UP CORRECTION, BUT THE #2 INDICATED ON GS. THE #2 WAS INOP. AFTER THE ALERT THE PF CORRECTED FOR AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG.

Narrative: TWR (LCL CTL) ADVISED OF AN ALT ALERT AND INFORMED THAT THE MINIMUM INST ALT FOR OUR LOCATION WAS 1300 FT MSL. THE TWR OF COURSE WAS CORRECT, HOW DID THIS OCCUR? ORF WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL DEST. IT WAS IN FACT THE THIRD ARPT UTILIZED, THE ONLY WITH AN ILS. THE FIRST ARPT WAS SFQ. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL DEST. HOWEVER, UPON ARR, THE ONLY APCH NAVAID (NDB) WAS INOP. APCH CTL WAS NOT AWARE THE FACILITY WAS INOP AND THERE WERE NO NOTAMS TO THAT EFFECT. NOTAM INFO WAS CAREFULLY CHKED BEFORE DEP FROM KINSTON, NC. THE FLT DIVERTED TO CPK FOR THE LOC 5 APCH. 2 APCHS WERE MADE AT CPK, BOTH ENDING IN MISSED APCHS. SEVERAL INTERESTING ITEMS ABOUT THE CPK ARPT/APCH: 1) THE RWY LIGHTS REMAIN ON THE OLD CTAF OF 122.7 WHILE THE NEW CTAF OF 123.05 IS NOTAMED VIA THE AWOS. OF COURSE THE ENTIRE INFO IS A LCL AND NOT A DISTANT NOTAM. YET THE AWOS VERBALLY TELLS YOU TO USE 123.05 AS THE CTAF AND IS MUTE ON THE DIFFERENT FREQ FOR RWY LIGHTS. 2) THE LOC RWY 5 APCH PLATE FOR CPK IDENTS THE NDB IDENT AS 'EYK' (CHESI). HOWEVER, THE ACFT WAS RECEIVING 'EY,' NO 'K' WAS BEING RECEIVED. THIS NOW IS THE SECOND NDB NAVAID WITH RECEPTION PROBS. THE FLT DIVERTED TO ORF FOR THE ILS RWY 5. THE ACFT IS EQUIPPED WITH 2 ILS RECEIVERS, EACH WITH GS. UPON RECEIVING APCH CLRNC WE BECAME ESTABLISHED ON THE LOC AND HANDED OFF TO TWR. WE WERE INSIDE 'CALEY,' HAD A FULL UP GS ON NAV #1, A CTRED GS ON NAV #2, AND AN ADF BEARING TOWARD THE TAIL. ANALYSIS (FAULTY) INSIDE FAF (INGLE) AND ON GLIDE PATH. THE TRUTH WAS GS #2 WAS INOP. GS #1 WAS ACCURATE AND THE ADF WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY. SINCE WE WERE WELL ABOVE THE MDA FOR THE APCH I HAD NOT INTERVENED, AND THE PIC SALVAGED THE APCH TO AN UNEVENTFUL CONCLUSION. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) SUFFOLK, VA, NDB IS NOT IDENTED AS UNMONITORED IF THE GND XMITTER WAS INOP (WHICH IT WAS AND HAD BEEN BEFORE WE DEPARTED KINSTON, NC). THE APCH PLATE SHOULD ADVISE AS UNMONITORED. 2) CHESAPEAKE, VA, LOC RWY 5 APCH PLATE IDENTS THE CTAF AS 122.7 AND INSTRUCTS TO ACTIVATE LIGHTING ON 122.7. HOWEVER, THE AWOS INSTRUCTIONS NOTAM THE CTAF TO 123.05 AND IS MUTE ON THE LIGHTING. THIS IS A LCL NOTAM VIA FSS AND IF ONE HAD RECEIVED THE FSS LCL NOTAM AND SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED THE NOTAM VIA AWOS, WHICH FREQ FOR LIGHTING WOULD BE THE MOST CURRENT? WHY IS THE ARPT LIGHTING FREQ NOT PART OF THE AWOS NOTAM INFO? P.S. WHY IS CPK PARACHUTE JUMPING ACTIVITIES LISTED AS A LCL NOTAM FOR NORFOLK? 3) CHESI (EYK) NDB IDENTIFIER SHOWN ON THE APCH PLATE SHOULD BE ACCURATE, OR AT LEAST NOTAMED UNTIL THE PLATE OR THE XMITTER IS CORRECTED. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: 1) THE PIC LEARNED TO VERIFY GS INTERCEPT ALT SHOWN ON THE APCH PLATE. 2) THE MARKER BEACON SYS WAS WORKING AND OBVIOUSLY THE ADF SYS WAS INACCURATE. 3) WHEN AN ERROR EXISTS BTWN 2 INSTS (GS), INVESTIGATE RATHER THAN ASSUME. NEED TO UTILIZE ALL OR AT LEAST ADDITIONAL INFO PRIOR TO FINAL DETERMINATION.

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.