Narrative:

On jul/thu/04, I reviewed a current dfw sectional (expires sep/xa/04) and planned a short flight from mineral wells (mwl) to denton (dto). I called AFSS for a standard briefing. On the current sectional, dto is magenta (no tower). During the briefing there was no mention of a new tower in the NOTAMS. I made the flight, calling traffic on 122.7 (published CTAF on sectional). I was surprised to see a new tower on the field as I taxied to the ramp. I was even more surprised to see light signals coming from the new tower. I immediately went in the terminal and called the tower and explained I had a current chart and had received a briefing. They called AFSS and were told the tower was in the new airport facility directory (AFD), and therefore not in NOTAMS as part of a briefing. I apologized to the tower, and assured them it would not happen again. I failed part 91.103 preflight action which requires 'become familiar with all available information.' I have an airport facility directory (current), but did not check it. This would have prevented this error. Another solution might have been to be on a flight plan and communicating with ATC. I did not do this because it was such a short flight (about 15 mins) to a familiar airport (although it has been several months since I flew into dto, I used to fly there frequently). Now for a few thoughts I have had since this incident: I am a conscientious pilot that takes flying safety seriously. I follow rules to the best of my ability. I am not pleased that I flew into an area without the benefit of proper communications and coordination with other aircraft, possibly creating a dangerous situation. I have been flying since 1977, and have never felt the need to check the airport facility directory before every flight and every landing to every airport to see if there is a new tower that is not indicted on a sectional nor mentioned in a briefing. I am shocked that a new tower is not a mandatory NOTAM until new updated sectionals are published. Further, I have flown with many other pilots with varying experience levels, and I can assure you few, if any, check the airport facility directory for new towers either. If we (collectively -- pilots, ATC, FAA, FSS, etc) are really trying to promote safety, why wouldn't a new tower be kept as an active NOTAM until new charts are published? (And not just, 'well, it's in the airport facility directory!') also, I was calling traffic on the CTAF published on the current sectional, why doesn't a new tower monitor the old CTAF and say 'hey, are you aware there is a new tower at dto?' too much to ask? Seems common sense to me. Are we focusing on safety here, or what pilots are supposed to be responsible for? Last, but not least, why not have a short message on ASOS/AWOS 'caution -- new tower at airport.' maybe this isn't currently technically feasible, but maybe it should be. We are talking about insuring airplanes are communicating and coordinating to promote safety. Seems reasonable to me.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A NEW TWR IS A FACTOR IN A CLASS D AIRSPACE PENETRATION, AND RWY INCURSION WHEN LNDG WITHOUT CLRNC, BY AN M20J ATP PLT AT DTO.

Narrative: ON JUL/THU/04, I REVIEWED A CURRENT DFW SECTIONAL (EXPIRES SEP/XA/04) AND PLANNED A SHORT FLT FROM MINERAL WELLS (MWL) TO DENTON (DTO). I CALLED AFSS FOR A STANDARD BRIEFING. ON THE CURRENT SECTIONAL, DTO IS MAGENTA (NO TWR). DURING THE BRIEFING THERE WAS NO MENTION OF A NEW TWR IN THE NOTAMS. I MADE THE FLT, CALLING TFC ON 122.7 (PUBLISHED CTAF ON SECTIONAL). I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE A NEW TWR ON THE FIELD AS I TAXIED TO THE RAMP. I WAS EVEN MORE SURPRISED TO SEE LIGHT SIGNALS COMING FROM THE NEW TWR. I IMMEDIATELY WENT IN THE TERMINAL AND CALLED THE TWR AND EXPLAINED I HAD A CURRENT CHART AND HAD RECEIVED A BRIEFING. THEY CALLED AFSS AND WERE TOLD THE TWR WAS IN THE NEW ARPT FACILITY DIRECTORY (AFD), AND THEREFORE NOT IN NOTAMS AS PART OF A BRIEFING. I APOLOGIZED TO THE TWR, AND ASSURED THEM IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. I FAILED PART 91.103 PREFLT ACTION WHICH REQUIRES 'BECOME FAMILIAR WITH ALL AVAILABLE INFO.' I HAVE AN ARPT FACILITY DIRECTORY (CURRENT), BUT DID NOT CHK IT. THIS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS ERROR. ANOTHER SOLUTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN TO BE ON A FLT PLAN AND COMMUNICATING WITH ATC. I DID NOT DO THIS BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A SHORT FLT (ABOUT 15 MINS) TO A FAMILIAR ARPT (ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN SEVERAL MONTHS SINCE I FLEW INTO DTO, I USED TO FLY THERE FREQUENTLY). NOW FOR A FEW THOUGHTS I HAVE HAD SINCE THIS INCIDENT: I AM A CONSCIENTIOUS PLT THAT TAKES FLYING SAFETY SERIOUSLY. I FOLLOW RULES TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. I AM NOT PLEASED THAT I FLEW INTO AN AREA WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PROPER COMS AND COORD WITH OTHER ACFT, POSSIBLY CREATING A DANGEROUS SIT. I HAVE BEEN FLYING SINCE 1977, AND HAVE NEVER FELT THE NEED TO CHK THE ARPT FACILITY DIRECTORY BEFORE EVERY FLT AND EVERY LNDG TO EVERY ARPT TO SEE IF THERE IS A NEW TWR THAT IS NOT INDICTED ON A SECTIONAL NOR MENTIONED IN A BRIEFING. I AM SHOCKED THAT A NEW TWR IS NOT A MANDATORY NOTAM UNTIL NEW UPDATED SECTIONALS ARE PUBLISHED. FURTHER, I HAVE FLOWN WITH MANY OTHER PLTS WITH VARYING EXPERIENCE LEVELS, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU FEW, IF ANY, CHK THE ARPT FACILITY DIRECTORY FOR NEW TWRS EITHER. IF WE (COLLECTIVELY -- PLTS, ATC, FAA, FSS, ETC) ARE REALLY TRYING TO PROMOTE SAFETY, WHY WOULDN'T A NEW TWR BE KEPT AS AN ACTIVE NOTAM UNTIL NEW CHARTS ARE PUBLISHED? (AND NOT JUST, 'WELL, IT'S IN THE ARPT FACILITY DIRECTORY!') ALSO, I WAS CALLING TFC ON THE CTAF PUBLISHED ON THE CURRENT SECTIONAL, WHY DOESN'T A NEW TWR MONITOR THE OLD CTAF AND SAY 'HEY, ARE YOU AWARE THERE IS A NEW TWR AT DTO?' TOO MUCH TO ASK? SEEMS COMMON SENSE TO ME. ARE WE FOCUSING ON SAFETY HERE, OR WHAT PLTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR? LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, WHY NOT HAVE A SHORT MESSAGE ON ASOS/AWOS 'CAUTION -- NEW TWR AT ARPT.' MAYBE THIS ISN'T CURRENTLY TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, BUT MAYBE IT SHOULD BE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INSURING AIRPLANES ARE COMMUNICATING AND COORDINATING TO PROMOTE SAFETY. SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME.

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.