Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 144; Flight Crew Total 1356; Flight Crew Type 573
Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
An unreported; unlit crane approximately 600-700 FT AGL existed at 3.2 DME on the final approach course to the VOR Y Runway 06 at MYGF. The MYGF NOTAMs for MYGF did not contain temporary obstructions nor did they include amendments to the VOR Y Runway 06 IAP. On initial contact with MYGF Approach; the Approach Controller did not alert our crew of the temporary obstruction. Prior to the VALRY FAF; the Approach Controller cleared our crew for the VOR Y Runway 06 approach. MVFR conditions prevailed with cloud bases reported at 2;800 FT. After passing VALRY; the pilot flying initiated a descent to 700 FT MSL while established inbound on the 069 final approach course. At approximately 3.7 DME; the pilot not flying alerted the pilot flying of a crane existing on the final approach course to Runway 06. The pilot flying stopped the aircraft's descent and maneuvered right of the final approach course in order to avoid the unreported crane. Given that MVFR conditions prevailed; the crew proceeded to execute a visual approach to Runway 06 and landed without further incident. The crane was resting on-top of a ship that was docked at the harbor southwest of the airfield on the final approach to Runway 06. If IMC conditions prevailed; the unreported crane would have posed a serious threat to the safety of our flight given that it existed exactly at the 3.2 DME/ 620 FT step down fix. A NOTAM should be issued for this obstruction and its location should be passed along to aircrews conducting approaches to Runway 06. In addition; the VOR Y Runway 06 approach should not be utilized during this crane's presence.
The reporter stated that the NOTAM referencing the three cranes; with Crane 8 disabled boom up; is not the same crane that the crew avoided. The crane in place that day restricts approaches to VMC only; visual approaches. Also TRACON controllers are required to notify the crew about its presence. Neither of those conditions were met. The Tower Controller informed them of the restrictive conditions after landing.
We were not cleared for the visual or told of the hazard on our approach path. The pilot flying was watching instruments. If the flight was in IMC conditions I believe fatalities would have resulted from impact with the shipyard crane.
A flight crew on the MYGF VOR Y 06 approach took evasive action from a crane extended to around 600 FT; 3.2 miles from the approach end and were told after landing that the TRACON Controller should have notified them and further that only visual approaches were conducted during the crane's presence.