B737-700
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 260; Flight Crew Type 11700
Time Pressure; Other / Unknown
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Airport; Human Factors; Weather
At cruise altitude; OAK ATIS reported 300 foot ceiling and one mile visibility. We briefed and set up for the ILS to Runway 30 shortened. We reviewed the NOTAM's for Runway 30 since there were several. I noticed the ILS to Runway 28R went down to 200 foot ceiling. I did not check the NOTAM's for ILS 28R at cruise. Fifteen miles from the runway on vectors; we were directed to climb to 5;000 feet and turn downwind. There was an opposite direction aircraft on missed approach from Runway 12. On downwind; we discussed the ceiling must be lower than 300 feet. I mentioned that the ILS to 28R has approach lights; goes down to 200 feet; and is further inland than Runway 30. We set up; briefed; and flew the ILS 28R approach to landing. I did not check NOTAM's for ILS 28R while on downwind. While at the gate preparing for the next leg; I asked Dispatch for a takeoff alternate and then noticed the NOTAM for the ILS 28R DA of 337 feet for a 191 foot crane .2 NM northeast of Runway 28R. Per the chart; we had set and flown to a DA of 206 feet. The approach lights were in sight by the APPROACHING MINIMUMS call; but we were not aware of the NOTAM when we flew the approach.  I had two chances to review the NOTAMS for 28R and missed them both times. The first time; because of my focus on a newly configured runway; and the second time; because I was rushing to set up and brief the new approach.
[We were] on approach into Oakland and realized that the other flights were not landing on Runway 30. The Captain suggested flying approach into Runway 28R because the approach minimums are lower. After reviewing the data; I agreed. The flight landed and blocked into the gate uneventfully. After takeoff for the next flight; while climbing out; we heard a flight inbound to Oakland talking about the higher approach minimums for Runway 28R. This was when we realized we flew to the wrong minimums for Runway 28R. Upon hearing that; we reviewed the NOTAM's and; sure enough; the approach minimums were higher for Runway 28R due to an obstacle.
B737-700 flight crew reports overlooking a NOTAM raising the DA for the Runway 28R ILS 337 feet due to a crane near the approach end of the runway. The published DA of 209 feet is used for the approach and landing and the error is not discovered until after gate arrival.