Narrative:

On an IFR flight plan. I was instructed by chicago approach to expect the VOR 36 approach into LL10. About 3 miles from the jot VOR; I was given the following clearance; 'cross the jot VOR at 3000 ft; cleared for the VOR 36 approach into naper aeronautical (LL10). Since I was not provided vectors to intercept the final approach course (typically; the controllers will descend an aircraft to 2500 ft on a specific heading and instruct the pilot to intercept the final approach course; that the aircraft is X miles from the finzr (final approach fix) and that the aircraft is cleared for the VOR 36 approach); I elected to fly the procedure turn to lose 500 ft of altitude and establish myself on the final approach course. Naper aeronautical is a private field and the approach plate that I was given for the field shows a race track procedure turn at the jot VOR (the jot VOR is also the IAF). As I crossed the jot VOR; I performed a direct entry into the procedure turn and aligned myself with the final approach course on the inbound leg of the procedure turn (024 degree radial from the jot VOR) while descending from 3000 ft to 2500 ft. 2500 ft is the minimum altitude for the procedure turn and intermediate approach segment. As I was completing the procedure turn; the controller asked if I was performing a procedure turn. I stated that I was per my approach plate since I was not given vectors to the final approach course. The controller then said that he was not aware that the approach had a procedure turn. I replied that my approach plate showed a race track procedure turn. He then stated that his plate did not show a procedure turn. He also stated that his plate stated that procedure turns were not authorized (which is an odd statement because why would an approach plate state that procedure turns are not authorized if there were no procedure turns depicted on the approach plate). At this point; the controller cleared me to change frequency to the local unicom. Since I was still 10 miles out from the airport in marginal VMC; I elected to stay on the approach frequency. After about one-two minutes; the controller called to see if I was still on frequency. After establishing communication; he stated that; 'his plate only showed a transition from the jot VOR.' I was confused by this as the jot VOR is the IAF. I continued to fly my approach per my approach plate. When I canceled my IFR flight plan about 1 mile from the airport; I asked the controller if he would like me to contact him and send him a copy of my approach plate to determine whose plate was more current. He stated that it was not necessary and that he would use his resources to verify the plate. I believe there are two issues that led to this event. 1) the clear communication between ATC and the pilot. I was under the expectation that since I was not vectored to the final approach course and only vectored to the IAF that as PIC the procedure turn was my decision but a preferred action by the FAA since the approach plate has no limitations on the use of the procedure turn. I am aware that when vectored to the final approach course; procedure turns are not authorized unless granted by ATC. I should have confirmed that ATC wanted me to execute the procedure turn even though I was only cleared to the IAF and for the VOR 36 approach. 2) the potential that different approach plates exist for a private field. As a corrective measure; I immediately contacted several other pilots at the field that regularly use the instrument approach. Two have an identical approach plate as mine. A third person stated that he had two versions; one was the VOR 36 plate (same as mine) and the other was a VOR/GPS 36 plate. He was not sure if there were any differences other than the name. I plan to review these approach plates at the earliest opportunity. In addition; I plan to contact the airport manager to determine if my approach plate is not the most current and to inform that there are various versions of the approach plate in circulation (or the ATC has a different version). In addition; I believe there needs to be a way to identify the most current approach plates for private airports similar to how current public airport approach plates can be viewed via the internet or through a subscription. I regularly review and use the most current nos chartson flts and review all NOTAMS and fdc NOTAMS. I have not seen any NOTAMS related to the LL10 VOR 36 approach. To make sure that I did not miss anything; I reviewed the NOTAMS and fdc NOTAMS again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PLT RPTS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN HIS AND ATC'S PRIVATE ARPT APCH CHART AND NOTES THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT METHOD TO VERIFY CHART CURRENCY OR ACCURACY.

Narrative: ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. I WAS INSTRUCTED BY CHICAGO APCH TO EXPECT THE VOR 36 APCH INTO LL10. ABOUT 3 MILES FROM THE JOT VOR; I WAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING CLRNC; 'CROSS THE JOT VOR AT 3000 FT; CLRED FOR THE VOR 36 APCH INTO NAPER AERO (LL10). SINCE I WAS NOT PROVIDED VECTORS TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE (TYPICALLY; THE CTLRS WILL DSND AN ACFT TO 2500 FT ON A SPECIFIC HDG AND INSTRUCT THE PLT TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE; THAT THE ACFT IS X MILES FROM THE FINZR (FINAL APCH FIX) AND THAT THE ACFT IS CLRED FOR THE VOR 36 APCH); I ELECTED TO FLY THE PROC TURN TO LOSE 500 FT OF ALT AND ESTABLISH MYSELF ON THE FINAL APCH COURSE. NAPER AERO IS A PRIVATE FIELD AND THE APCH PLATE THAT I WAS GIVEN FOR THE FIELD SHOWS A RACE TRACK PROC TURN AT THE JOT VOR (THE JOT VOR IS ALSO THE IAF). AS I CROSSED THE JOT VOR; I PERFORMED A DIRECT ENTRY INTO THE PROC TURN AND ALIGNED MYSELF WITH THE FINAL APCH COURSE ON THE INBOUND LEG OF THE PROC TURN (024 DEG RADIAL FROM THE JOT VOR) WHILE DSNDING FROM 3000 FT TO 2500 FT. 2500 FT IS THE MINIMUM ALT FOR THE PROC TURN AND INTERMEDIATE APCH SEGMENT. AS I WAS COMPLETING THE PROC TURN; THE CTLR ASKED IF I WAS PERFORMING A PROC TURN. I STATED THAT I WAS PER MY APCH PLATE SINCE I WAS NOT GIVEN VECTORS TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE. THE CTLR THEN SAID THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE APCH HAD A PROC TURN. I REPLIED THAT MY APCH PLATE SHOWED A RACE TRACK PROC TURN. HE THEN STATED THAT HIS PLATE DID NOT SHOW A PROC TURN. HE ALSO STATED THAT HIS PLATE STATED THAT PROC TURNS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED (WHICH IS AN ODD STATEMENT BECAUSE WHY WOULD AN APCH PLATE STATE THAT PROC TURNS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED IF THERE WERE NO PROC TURNS DEPICTED ON THE APCH PLATE). AT THIS POINT; THE CTLR CLRED ME TO CHANGE FREQ TO THE LOCAL UNICOM. SINCE I WAS STILL 10 MILES OUT FROM THE ARPT IN MARGINAL VMC; I ELECTED TO STAY ON THE APCH FREQ. AFTER ABOUT ONE-TWO MINUTES; THE CTLR CALLED TO SEE IF I WAS STILL ON FREQ. AFTER ESTABLISHING COMMUNICATION; HE STATED THAT; 'HIS PLATE ONLY SHOWED A TRANSITION FROM THE JOT VOR.' I WAS CONFUSED BY THIS AS THE JOT VOR IS THE IAF. I CONTINUED TO FLY MY APCH PER MY APCH PLATE. WHEN I CANCELED MY IFR FLT PLAN ABOUT 1 MILE FROM THE ARPT; I ASKED THE CTLR IF HE WOULD LIKE ME TO CONTACT HIM AND SEND HIM A COPY OF MY APCH PLATE TO DETERMINE WHOSE PLATE WAS MORE CURRENT. HE STATED THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY AND THAT HE WOULD USE HIS RESOURCES TO VERIFY THE PLATE. I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO ISSUES THAT LED TO THIS EVENT. 1) THE CLEAR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATC AND THE PLT. I WAS UNDER THE EXPECTATION THAT SINCE I WAS NOT VECTORED TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE AND ONLY VECTORED TO THE IAF THAT AS PIC THE PROC TURN WAS MY DECISION BUT A PREFERRED ACTION BY THE FAA SINCE THE APCH PLATE HAS NO LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF THE PROC TURN. I AM AWARE THAT WHEN VECTORED TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE; PROC TURNS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNLESS GRANTED BY ATC. I SHOULD HAVE CONFIRMED THAT ATC WANTED ME TO EXECUTE THE PROC TURN EVEN THOUGH I WAS ONLY CLRED TO THE IAF AND FOR THE VOR 36 APCH. 2) THE POTENTIAL THAT DIFFERENT APCH PLATES EXIST FOR A PRIVATE FIELD. AS A CORRECTIVE MEASURE; I IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED SEVERAL OTHER PLTS AT THE FIELD THAT REGULARLY USE THE INSTRUMENT APCH. TWO HAVE AN IDENTICAL APCH PLATE AS MINE. A THIRD PERSON STATED THAT HE HAD TWO VERSIONS; ONE WAS THE VOR 36 PLATE (SAME AS MINE) AND THE OTHER WAS A VOR/GPS 36 PLATE. HE WAS NOT SURE IF THERE WERE ANY DIFFERENCES OTHER THAN THE NAME. I PLAN TO REVIEW THESE APCH PLATES AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY. IN ADDITION; I PLAN TO CONTACT THE ARPT MANAGER TO DETERMINE IF MY APCH PLATE IS NOT THE MOST CURRENT AND TO INFORM THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE APCH PLATE IN CIRCULATION (OR THE ATC HAS A DIFFERENT VERSION). IN ADDITION; I BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE A WAY TO IDENTIFY THE MOST CURRENT APCH PLATES FOR PRIVATE ARPTS SIMILAR TO HOW CURRENT PUBLIC ARPT APCH PLATES CAN BE VIEWED VIA THE INTERNET OR THROUGH A SUBSCRIPTION. I REGULARLY REVIEW AND USE THE MOST CURRENT NOS CHARTSON FLTS AND REVIEW ALL NOTAMS AND FDC NOTAMS. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY NOTAMS RELATED TO THE LL10 VOR 36 APCH. TO MAKE SURE THAT I DID NOT MISS ANYTHING; I REVIEWED THE NOTAMS AND FDC NOTAMS AGAIN.

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.