Narrative:

Upon checking weather for a trip to txk; we were expecting the RNAV 13 approach at destination due to low ceilings; and the fact that the ILS 22 was not available due to runway closure. During my predeparture briefing; it was decided to use LNAV only minimums of 760' MSL; due to the presence of an fdc notam; raising the LNAV/VNAV minimums to 837' MSL. I became preoccupied with having the O2 serviced on the airplane and did not provide a normal pre-departure briefing to the other pilot. Enroute we were cleared direct gigve; the IAF for the RNAV13. The appropriate fix was selected in the FMS. About 12 miles from gigve we were given a heading of 310 and pointed away from the airport. We were then given direct jelga; another IAF; and proceeded to it. We briefed the approach; and double checked that the FMS sequence was correct. During the approach briefing; I briefed an LNAV/VNAV approach to the minimums that were on the approach plate. At 780' MSL the PNF called the airport in sight and we landed without incident. It was not until after the flight that I realized we had done the LNAV/VNAV approach; instead of utilizing the LNAV only procedure; thus descending below the minimum specified in the fdc NOTAM. The root cause of the issue; is that I did not follow our normal procedure of printing out the weather and NOTAMS; and briefing the other pilot prior to the flight. Additional factors were the attention to a maintenance event that was happening during our preflight procedures; and a preoccupation with the low ceilings at destination.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CE25 pilot reports descending below RNAV minimums as revised by FDC NOTAM at TXK.

Narrative: Upon checking weather for a trip to TXK; we were expecting the RNAV 13 approach at destination due to low ceilings; and the fact that the ILS 22 was not available due to runway closure. During my predeparture briefing; it was decided to use LNAV ONLY minimums of 760' MSL; due to the presence of an FDC Notam; raising the LNAV/VNAV minimums to 837' MSL. I became preoccupied with having the O2 serviced on the airplane and did not provide a normal pre-departure briefing to the other pilot. Enroute we were cleared direct GIGVE; the IAF for the RNAV13. The appropriate fix was selected in the FMS. About 12 miles from GIGVE we were given a heading of 310 and pointed away from the airport. We were then given Direct JELGA; another IAF; and proceeded to it. We briefed the approach; and double checked that the FMS sequence was correct. During the approach briefing; I briefed an LNAV/VNAV approach to the minimums that were on the approach plate. At 780' MSL the PNF called the airport in sight and we landed without incident. It was not until after the flight that I realized we had done the LNAV/VNAV approach; instead of utilizing the LNAV ONLY procedure; thus descending below the minimum specified in the FDC NOTAM. The root cause of the issue; is that I did not follow our normal procedure of printing out the weather and NOTAMS; and briefing the other pilot prior to the flight. Additional factors were the attention to a maintenance event that was happening during our preflight procedures; and a preoccupation with the low ceilings at destination.

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.