Narrative:

While being vectored for the ILS 6 circle to 1 approach to teb; we were handed off to the tower with an airspeed of 180 KTS; and an altitude of 2;000 ft. We were approaching dandy which had a mandatory descent to 1;500 ft and were now cleared for the ILS approach circle to 1. We were very close to dandy; with quite a bit of speed along with moderate turbulence. The circle at teb is confusing enough without the additional speed; and the late approach clearance. I had been discussing the approach with the pilot flying; and remembered a 1;500 ft restriction at dandy; but we did not review that then. We were using electronic approach plates; with the ILS depicted; but not the profile view; which showed the mandatory altitude at dandy. The teb ILS 6 approach is a bit different; in that it requires a stepdown to the FAF. We were so involved; and close to the stepdown fix; that we remained at the 2;000 ft altitude to intercept the GS; without descending to the required 1;500 ft altitude. The tower made a reference to the 1;500 ft altitude; but I had been thinking it was an 'at or above' requirement; not an 'at or below' requirement. The tower then advised us that the fix altitude was mandatory; and I advised them that we were descending. We continued the circle; but the speed at which we were flying; combined with the turbulence made the descent slow; and along with that our speed was held at 180 KTS. This had been a prior restriction; which had not been lifted until we had been cleared for the approach; and using the automation we held the speed at 180 KTS. This circle approach has always been difficult at this airport; and with the pilot flying doing this for the first time; it was especially distracting for both of us. The aircraft technology got in the way by us not recognizing that the speed was held before the approach; and not having the profile up on the plate caused us to miss the altitude at dandy. I feel that this approach should be a localizer only approach with the circle; not the ILS with the circle at this airport. This would draw greater attention to the descent altitudes required during the approach instead of thinking of intercepting the GS and heading on down. I feel it would be a lot less confusing for newer pilots at this airport; or airports like this. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that the profile view of the approach could have been displayed but would have reduced the size of the plan view on their display; which is somewhat small. In the future the profile view will be displayed when flying this approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GV Captain reports missing crossing restriction at DANDY during ILS 6 at TEB. Speed was maintained until late in the approach and the clearance was to circle to land Runway 1; which added complexity to the procedure.

Narrative: While being vectored for the ILS 6 circle to 1 approach to TEB; we were handed off to the Tower with an airspeed of 180 KTS; and an altitude of 2;000 FT. We were approaching DANDY which had a mandatory descent to 1;500 FT and were now cleared for the ILS approach circle to 1. We were very close to DANDY; with quite a bit of speed along with moderate turbulence. The circle at TEB is confusing enough without the additional speed; and the late approach clearance. I had been discussing the approach with the Pilot Flying; and remembered a 1;500 FT restriction at DANDY; but we did not review that then. We were using electronic approach plates; with the ILS depicted; but not the profile view; which showed the mandatory altitude at DANDY. The TEB ILS 6 approach is a bit different; in that it requires a stepdown to the FAF. We were so involved; and close to the stepdown fix; that we remained at the 2;000 FT altitude to intercept the GS; without descending to the required 1;500 FT altitude. The Tower made a reference to the 1;500 FT altitude; but I had been thinking it was an 'at or above' requirement; not an 'at or below' requirement. The Tower then advised us that the fix altitude was mandatory; and I advised them that we were descending. We continued the circle; but the speed at which we were flying; combined with the turbulence made the descent slow; and along with that our speed was held at 180 KTS. This had been a prior restriction; which had not been lifted until we had been cleared for the approach; and using the automation we held the speed at 180 KTS. This circle approach has always been difficult at this airport; and with the Pilot Flying doing this for the first time; it was especially distracting for both of us. The aircraft technology got in the way by us not recognizing that the speed was held before the approach; and not having the profile up on the plate caused us to miss the altitude at DANDY. I feel that this approach should be a LOC only approach with the circle; not the ILS with the circle at this airport. This would draw greater attention to the descent altitudes required during the approach instead of thinking of intercepting the GS and heading on down. I feel it would be a lot less confusing for newer pilots at this airport; or airports like this. Callback conversation with Reporter revealed the following information: The reporter stated that the profile view of the approach could have been displayed but would have reduced the size of the plan view on their display; which is somewhat small. In the future the profile view will be displayed when flying this approach.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.