Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Instrument
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 40; Flight Crew Total 6733; Flight Crew Type 1681
Confusion
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General None Reported / Taken
Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
I was on an IFR flight plan; in the clouds; nearing the THA airport. My plane was equipped with an IFR certified GPS system. I had planned the flight carefully (I thought) and had reviewed all necessary information and NOTAMS for the flight. I was being handled by Memphis Center. The controller asked which approach I wanted. Given that the ceiling was reported 2500 broken but variable; and just below the 3300 transition altitude; I told him that I wanted the VOR 24 approach. He cleared me direct to the Tullahoma VOR (UXM) at 3300 and cleared me for the approach. I had been navigating using the GPS system in my plane and continued to use it to go direct to the UXM VOR. I tried tuning in the UXM VOR on my VOR receiver; but did not get a good signal. I told ATC that I was not receiving the VOR. He told me that he did NOT have any NOTAMS showing that the UXM VOR was out of service. So I continued to use the GPS to navigate to the UXM VOR--which is allowed--thinking that since the VOR was a low powered one that I was just not yet getting a good signal. Another plane behind me asked for the VOR 24 approach. Then he reported that he was not receiving the UXM VOR either and asked for a different approach. I began to be concerned; but I knew that I could substitute my IFR certified GPS for an out-of-service VOR legally; but I could not use it for navigation on the final approach fix. Soon I started getting needle movement on my VOR receiver; but never a good signal. I don't know what this signal was--perhaps another VOR? I continued to navigate to the UXM VOR using my IFR certified GPS system and broke out of the clouds into VFR conditions just before reaching the UXM VOR. I started to descend VFR; turning back toward the airport. While doing this; I reported to ATC that I had lost the signal on the UXM VOR again; but that I was VFR. I cancelled IFR at that time--while VFR and before having to navigate the final approach course for the UXM VOR.As it turns out; the UXM VOR had been NOTAMED out of service (OTS) and I had missed this NOTAM in the dozens that had to be reviewed. ATC apparently also missed it; because the controller told me that he did not have any NOTAMS for the UXM VOR. The other plane behind me also missed the NOTAM; because he also asked for the VOR 24 approach using the UXM VOR. So two pilots and one controller did not know that the UXM VOR has been NOTAMed OTS.Certainly; I should have been more careful in my review of the NOTAMS. Having said that the NOTAM system is badly broken and the FAA is working on fixing it. As it stands now; pilots and controllers are supposed to review pages and pages of NOTAMS many of which are basically un-readable. Nonetheless; I should have seen the NOTAM and requested a different approach. I will be more careful in the future.I do not believe that any violation of the FARs occurred. I was navigating the approach transition to the UXM VOR using an IFR certified GPS system and broke out into VFR conditions without using that system to navigate the final approach course. Having said that; missing the NOTAM was sloppy at best. But two pilots and the controller not knowing about the NOTAM testifies to problems with the NOTAM system as it is today.
An Bonanza 36 pilot reported flying a VOR approach using a NOTAMed out of service VOR. Reporter cited the poor formatting and presentation of NOTAMs as contributory.