Narrative:

This was a morning departure to ste. Ste does not have a weather forecast. I checked weather the day before the trip and realized that it would be poor. As a result; I checked the instrument approaches to both runways. The morning of the flight; my briefing packet arrived and I checked the weather and notams; and it was then that I noticed that the ILS was scheduled to be out of service for maintenance. The weather was forecast to be temporary 2 SM br 005 ovc. The RNAV GPS approach would be right at minimums. I briefed my co-pilot on the situation. I then contacted the airport manager to ask him; that in light of the current weather if the maintenance could be pushed back an hour to accommodate my arrival. He said that he thought that the NOTAM was invalid and that he would contact FAA tech ops and call me back. He called back a few minutes later and informed me that the NOTAM would be withdrawn and that the ILS would be available all day. I must admit; I was somewhat fixated on using the ILS approach; and at this point I was relieved to hear that it would be working. The flight was uneventful. At one point while being vectored the controller asked if we had the weather and fdc notams. My co-pilot responded in the affirmative. We landed uneventfully. While preparing for departure; I pulled up the weather and notams for both my departure airport and destination. It was then that I noticed for the first time; the fdc NOTAM that listed the s-ils runway 21 na. I supposed I could interpret that to mean that I could legally use circling minimums and still land on runway 21 if I were to acquire it visually. The fact is that I was completely unaware of the fdc NOTAM; because it had been inadvertently excluded from the briefing package I received. It is not uncommon for many of the smaller airports that I fly to not have any fdc or D notams; and I had been so fixated on the NOTAM about the ILS being taken out of service that I did not notice my mistake. The reason for the prohibition on using the s-ils to runway 21 was because of a crane located approximately 4;000 ft northeast of the runway at a height of about 140 ft AGL. On departure; we departed runway 3 and did not see a crane. The airport manager never mentioned the crane. I think that perhaps the crane is no longer in the area. Human factors affecting this in my opinion are that notams are still published in a code that was invented back when we used to send these via teletype machine. If notams were printed in plain english; they would be so much easier read without having to first decipher. In this day and age of ubiquitous internet communication; is there a compelling safety or cost reason why notams cannot be transmitted in plain english? I can give you a compelling safety reason why continuing to transmit them in an archaic code can lead to mistakes that could possibly lead to accidents. Additionally; it seems odd to me that I would be vectored and cleared for an approach that was NOTAM'd as na. I do not hold the controller responsible (I am solely responsible) because he did ask if we had the fdc notams. While being vectored though rain showers to an approach near minimums; I failed to distinguish between D notams and fdc notams. I thought that he might have been referencing the d-notam about the ILS being taken out of service (which I knew to be invalid).

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Captain reports missing an FDC NOTAM restricting the ILS 21 at STE to circling minimums only due to a crane in the approach path. The reporter states that NOTAMS are still published in a code that was invented back when they used to be sent via teletype machine.

Narrative: This was a morning departure to STE. STE does not have a weather forecast. I checked weather the day before the trip and realized that it would be poor. As a result; I checked the instrument approaches to both runways. The morning of the flight; my briefing packet arrived and I checked the weather and NOTAMs; and it was then that I noticed that the ILS was scheduled to be out of service for maintenance. The weather was forecast to be temporary 2 SM BR 005 OVC. The RNAV GPS approach would be right at minimums. I briefed my co-pilot on the situation. I then contacted the Airport Manager to ask him; that in light of the current weather if the maintenance could be pushed back an hour to accommodate my arrival. He said that he thought that the NOTAM was invalid and that he would contact FAA Tech Ops and call me back. He called back a few minutes later and informed me that the NOTAM would be withdrawn and that the ILS would be available all day. I must admit; I was somewhat fixated on using the ILS approach; and at this point I was relieved to hear that it would be working. The flight was uneventful. At one point while being vectored the controller asked if we had the weather and FDC NOTAMs. My co-pilot responded in the affirmative. We landed uneventfully. While preparing for departure; I pulled up the weather and NOTAMs for both my departure airport and destination. It was then that I noticed for the first time; the FDC NOTAM that listed the S-ILS Runway 21 NA. I supposed I could interpret that to mean that I could legally use circling minimums and still land on Runway 21 if I were to acquire it visually. The fact is that I was completely unaware of the FDC NOTAM; because it had been inadvertently excluded from the briefing package I received. It is not uncommon for many of the smaller airports that I fly to not have any FDC or D NOTAMs; and I had been so fixated on the NOTAM about the ILS being taken out of service that I did not notice my mistake. The reason for the prohibition on using the S-ILS to Runway 21 was because of a crane located approximately 4;000 FT northeast of the runway at a height of about 140 FT AGL. On departure; we departed Runway 3 and did not see a crane. The Airport Manager never mentioned the crane. I think that perhaps the crane is no longer in the area. Human factors affecting this in my opinion are that NOTAMs are still published in a code that was invented back when we used to send these via teletype machine. If NOTAMs were printed in plain english; they would be so much easier read without having to first decipher. In this day and age of ubiquitous internet communication; is there a compelling safety or cost reason why NOTAMs cannot be transmitted in plain english? I can give you a compelling safety reason why continuing to transmit them in an archaic code can lead to mistakes that could possibly lead to accidents. Additionally; it seems odd to me that I would be vectored and cleared for an approach that was NOTAM'd as NA. I do not hold the controller responsible (I am solely responsible) because he did ask if we had the FDC NOTAMs. While being vectored though rain showers to an approach near minimums; I failed to distinguish between D NOTAMs and FDC NOTAMs. I thought that he might have been referencing the D-NOTAM about the ILS being taken out of service (which I knew to be invalid).

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.