A CE750 flight crew misreads their approach chart for a straight-in approach to runway 15 and end up...

Attributes
ACN	540930
Time
Date	200203
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
State Reference	CO
Altitude	msl bound lower : 10900 msl bound upper : 12200
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : ase.tower tower : cle.tower
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Navigation In Use	other other other vortac
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 7200 flight time type : 200
ASRS Report	540930
Person 2
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude conflict : ground less severe inflight encounter other non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Chart Or Publication Airspace Structure Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Chart Or Publication

Narrative:

We were on the VOR GPS C approach to runway 15, aspen, co. Even though the airport was VFR, there was a cloud layer that would interfere with a successful visual approach. We shot the approach at 134 KTS, broke out at approximately 10000 ft, circled overhead the airport and landed on runway 15. We got to the FBO and had 2 concerns. After talking with a company program manager the captain was told we are not to perform the approach if we cannot go visual at 12200 ft over the FAF, also that the approach was a straight-in approach due to the fact that the runway course and the approach course are within 18 degrees of each other. We simply looked at the plate incorrectly. The captain and I discussed our concerns thoroughly and we agreed that if the approach plate had 'north/a' in the straight-in minimums box we probably would have seen that it was a circling approach only. We also agreed that if we weren't so concerned with looking for all of the little 'traps' and an airport such as aspen we wouldn't have missed the obvious. We also discussed the issue of our company policy and even though the night before everything was researched pertaining to aspen, including a call to the company program manager, we missed the procedural limitation of going VFR at the FAF at 12200 ft. We feel that if this company limitation were with the approach plates we would have discovered it along with the company program manager. We performed the approach successfully after researching and discussing it thoroughly, however, we did feel it was best to tell your agency of our concerns.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CE750 FLC MISREADS THEIR APCH CHART FOR A STRAIGHT-IN APCH TO RWY 15 AND END UP MAKING A CIRCLING VISUAL APCH TO THE SAME RWY AT ASE, CO.

Narrative: WE WERE ON THE VOR GPS C APCH TO RWY 15, ASPEN, CO. EVEN THOUGH THE ARPT WAS VFR, THERE WAS A CLOUD LAYER THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH A SUCCESSFUL VISUAL APCH. WE SHOT THE APCH AT 134 KTS, BROKE OUT AT APPROX 10000 FT, CIRCLED OVERHEAD THE ARPT AND LANDED ON RWY 15. WE GOT TO THE FBO AND HAD 2 CONCERNS. AFTER TALKING WITH A COMPANY PROGRAM MGR THE CAPT WAS TOLD WE ARE NOT TO PERFORM THE APCH IF WE CANNOT GO VISUAL AT 12200 FT OVER THE FAF, ALSO THAT THE APCH WAS A STRAIGHT-IN APCH DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE RWY COURSE AND THE APCH COURSE ARE WITHIN 18 DEGS OF EACH OTHER. WE SIMPLY LOOKED AT THE PLATE INCORRECTLY. THE CAPT AND I DISCUSSED OUR CONCERNS THOROUGHLY AND WE AGREED THAT IF THE APCH PLATE HAD 'N/A' IN THE STRAIGHT-IN MINIMUMS BOX WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT IT WAS A CIRCLING APCH ONLY. WE ALSO AGREED THAT IF WE WEREN'T SO CONCERNED WITH LOOKING FOR ALL OF THE LITTLE 'TRAPS' AND AN ARPT SUCH AS ASPEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE MISSED THE OBVIOUS. WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF OUR COMPANY POLICY AND EVEN THOUGH THE NIGHT BEFORE EVERYTHING WAS RESEARCHED PERTAINING TO ASPEN, INCLUDING A CALL TO THE COMPANY PROGRAM MGR, WE MISSED THE PROCEDURAL LIMITATION OF GOING VFR AT THE FAF AT 12200 FT. WE FEEL THAT IF THIS COMPANY LIMITATION WERE WITH THE APCH PLATES WE WOULD HAVE DISCOVERED IT ALONG WITH THE COMPANY PROGRAM MGR. WE PERFORMED THE APCH SUCCESSFULLY AFTER RESEARCHING AND DISCUSSING IT THOROUGHLY, HOWEVER, WE DID FEEL IT WAS BEST TO TELL YOUR AGENCY OF OUR CONCERNS.

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.

A CE750 flight crew misreads their approach chart for a straight-in approach to runway 15 and end up making a circling visual approach to the same runway at ase, co.