Narrative:

I was flying into the napa area when I received radar vectors to intercept the localizer to runway 36L. At the time; due to the direction of the vector; I was excessively high when I intercepted the localizer. The controller at this time asked if I would be able to make the approach and I responded in the affirmative. Realizing that I needed more time to lose altitude; I asked for a left 360 degree turn in order to lose sufficient altitude. I was given the 360 degree turn; however; I was restr to 6000 ft MSL; which somewhat defeated the purpose of the maneuver. As I intercepted the localizer inbound I was still high; but thought I could still make the approach; which was optimistic on my part. As I neared the MDA; I picked up the runway which I stated to the tower controller at this time; however; I was high and my airspeed was excessive due to the 13 KT tailwind at the time; so I told the controller I would need to circle to land in VMC conditions which he allowed. As I made a left hand turn I quickly started to lose the runway environment so I initiated a modified missed approach procedure. I was instructed to switch over to oak approach which I did. I was given instructions to proceed direct to sgd which I was proceeding to do. As I approached 3000 ft MSL I was given the instruction to cross sgd at 3000 ft MSL and cleared for the localizer runway 36L. I was proceeding outbound from sgd on the 124 degree transition towards lylly where I had begun a descent to 1800 ft MSL which I believed to be the correct procedure. During my initial approach; the approach plate had fallen out of view and I was doing what I thought I remembered to be correct. The correct altitude; however; was 3000 ft MSL on the transition and the controller made me aware of this error as I neared lylly. I proceeded to do a tight left hand turn at lylly to reintercept the localizer and proceeded inbound. I was told to report established inbound on the approach which I did. As I descended on the approach the controller asked my position and altitude which I reported as 900 ft MSL just outside of roose which has a minimum altitude of 600 ft MSL. I was switched to napa tower who told me the lights were turned up to assist in seeing the runway. As I got to the MDA I spotted the runway and was cleared to land which I did with no further events. I think the previous situation was caused by several factors which could have been avoided. First; I think I should have made the decision early in the approach sequence that the approach was faulty; due to the WX conditions including a 13 KT tailwind and the fact that this approach procedure requires a fairly steep approach angle. I was fighting a losing battle. Second; after the decision was made to continue the approach and I entered the runway environment; I should have initiated the go around sooner instead of attempting the circle and land. This late decision set off the series of events leading to the approach transition altitude mistake. I feel that due to the fact I was flying single pilot IFR in adverse conditions I put myself in a series of sits that could have been avoided. If I could to it over again I would have discontinued my flight to napa and proceeded to my listed alternate which was oak. I can express that this situation was a humbling experience which I can assure will never happen again. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised he was inbound from eca when initially cleared for the approach. At the time; his track was at roughly 90 degrees to the inbound localizer course. He understood the clearance to be for a straight in although he was at 12000 ft MSL at the time and very close to the FAF. Upon reflection he believes that the clearance might instead have been to fly the entire procedure including the procedure turn; during which time the descent to appropriate altitudes could have been made. He further stated he had a passenger in the right hand pilot seat who was distracting because of the novelty of first time exposure to flight deck operations. Reporter also noted that he was hand flying the aircraft throughout and that doing so compromised his ability to regain appropriate situational awareness.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FOLLOWING UNSTABLIZED LOC APCH TO APC; PLT OF SINGLE ENGINE TURBO PROP EXPERIENCES ALT DEV WHILE MAKING MISSED APCH TRANSITION FOR SUBSEQUENT APCH.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING INTO THE NAPA AREA WHEN I RECEIVED RADAR VECTORS TO INTERCEPT THE LOCALIZER TO RWY 36L. AT THE TIME; DUE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE VECTOR; I WAS EXCESSIVELY HIGH WHEN I INTERCEPTED THE LOCALIZER. THE CTLR AT THIS TIME ASKED IF I WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE APCH AND I RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. REALIZING THAT I NEEDED MORE TIME TO LOSE ALT; I ASKED FOR A L 360 DEGREE TURN IN ORDER TO LOSE SUFFICIENT ALT. I WAS GIVEN THE 360 DEGREE TURN; HOWEVER; I WAS RESTR TO 6000 FT MSL; WHICH SOMEWHAT DEFEATED THE PURPOSE OF THE MANEUVER. AS I INTERCEPTED THE LOCALIZER INBOUND I WAS STILL HIGH; BUT THOUGHT I COULD STILL MAKE THE APCH; WHICH WAS OPTIMISTIC ON MY PART. AS I NEARED THE MDA; I PICKED UP THE RWY WHICH I STATED TO THE TWR CTLR AT THIS TIME; HOWEVER; I WAS HIGH AND MY AIRSPEED WAS EXCESSIVE DUE TO THE 13 KT TAILWIND AT THE TIME; SO I TOLD THE CTLR I WOULD NEED TO CIRCLE TO LAND IN VMC CONDITIONS WHICH HE ALLOWED. AS I MADE A LEFT HAND TURN I QUICKLY STARTED TO LOSE THE RWY ENVIRONMENT SO I INITIATED A MODIFIED MISSED APCH PROC. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO SWITCH OVER TO OAK APCH WHICH I DID. I WAS GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED DIRECT TO SGD WHICH I WAS PROCEEDING TO DO. AS I APCHED 3000 FT MSL I WAS GIVEN THE INSTRUCTION TO CROSS SGD AT 3000 FT MSL AND CLRED FOR THE LOCALIZER RWY 36L. I WAS PROCEEDING OUTBOUND FROM SGD ON THE 124 DEGREE TRANSITION TOWARDS LYLLY WHERE I HAD BEGUN A DSCNT TO 1800 FT MSL WHICH I BELIEVED TO BE THE CORRECT PROCEDURE. DURING MY INITIAL APCH; THE APCH PLATE HAD FALLEN OUT OF VIEW AND I WAS DOING WHAT I THOUGHT I REMEMBERED TO BE CORRECT. THE CORRECT ALT; HOWEVER; WAS 3000 FT MSL ON THE TRANSITION AND THE CTLR MADE ME AWARE OF THIS ERROR AS I NEARED LYLLY. I PROCEEDED TO DO A TIGHT L HAND TURN AT LYLLY TO REINTERCEPT THE LOCALIZER AND PROCEEDED INBOUND. I WAS TOLD TO REPORT ESTABLISHED INBOUND ON THE APCH WHICH I DID. AS I DESCENDED ON THE APCH THE CTLR ASKED MY POSITION AND ALT WHICH I REPORTED AS 900 FT MSL JUST OUTSIDE OF ROOSE WHICH HAS A MINIMUM ALT OF 600 FT MSL. I WAS SWITCHED TO NAPA TWR WHO TOLD ME THE LIGHTS WERE TURNED UP TO ASSIST IN SEEING THE RWY. AS I GOT TO THE MDA I SPOTTED THE RWY AND WAS CLRED TO LAND WHICH I DID WITH NO FURTHER EVENTS. I THINK THE PREVIOUS SIT WAS CAUSED BY SEVERAL FACTORS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. FIRST; I THINK I SHOULD HAVE MADE THE DECISION EARLY IN THE APCH SEQUENCE THAT THE APCH WAS FAULTY; DUE TO THE WX CONDITIONS INCLUDING A 13 KT TAILWIND AND THE FACT THAT THIS APCH PROCEDURE REQUIRES A FAIRLY STEEP APCH ANGLE. I WAS FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE. SECOND; AFTER THE DECISION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE THE APCH AND I ENTERED THE RWY ENVIRONMENT; I SHOULD HAVE INITIATED THE GO AROUND SOONER INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING THE CIRCLE AND LAND. THIS LATE DECISION SET OFF THE SERIES OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE APCH TRANSITION ALT MISTAKE. I FEEL THAT DUE TO THE FACT I WAS FLYING SINGLE PLT IFR IN ADVERSE CONDITIONS I PUT MYSELF IN A SERIES OF SITS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. IF I COULD TO IT OVER AGAIN I WOULD HAVE DISCONTINUED MY FLT TO NAPA AND PROCEEDED TO MY LISTED ALTERNATE WHICH WAS OAK. I CAN EXPRESS THAT THIS SIT WAS A HUMBLING EXPERIENCE WHICH I CAN ASSURE WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED HE WAS INBOUND FROM ECA WHEN INITIALLY CLRED FOR THE APCH. AT THE TIME; HIS TRACK WAS AT ROUGHLY 90 DEGREES TO THE INBOUND LOC COURSE. HE UNDERSTOOD THE CLRNC TO BE FOR A STRAIGHT IN ALTHOUGH HE WAS AT 12000 FT MSL AT THE TIME AND VERY CLOSE TO THE FAF. UPON REFLECTION HE BELIEVES THAT THE CLRNC MIGHT INSTEAD HAVE BEEN TO FLY THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE INCLUDING THE PROCEDURE TURN; DURING WHICH TIME THE DESCENT TO APPROPRIATE ALTS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE. HE FURTHER STATED HE HAD A PAX IN THE R HAND PLT SEAT WHO WAS DISTRACTING BECAUSE OF THE NOVELTY OF FIRST TIME EXPOSURE TO FLT DECK OPS. RPTR ALSO NOTED THAT HE WAS HAND FLYING THE ACFT THROUGHOUT AND THAT DOING SO COMPROMISED HIS ABILITY TO REGAIN APPROPRIATE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.