Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TRK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Broken; 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This was not a safety of flight event. I was flying to TRK on an IFR flight plan. I had departed prior to sunset; although we were running behind schedule so I knew it would be getting dark upon arrival. I have done this before; never circling at night per the 'old' approach limitation and for terrain clearance safety reasons. As the flight progressed I was handed off to Oakland Center for approach services. At that time I asked what approach to expect and picked up automated weather at destination and was told that approach procedures to TRK were not authorized at night and it was up to pilot discretion if I wanted to accept a clearance. 'What' I thought? It wasn't even night yet and this had never applied to straight in approaches in the past at TRK. When I asked if it was night the ATC controller could not confirm and told me that the information was not posted and made available to them. I asked if there would be additional paperwork if I accepted the approach and said that I thought it was not 'night yet'. ATC did not have a comment or any guidance. I accepted the approach clearance. I believed that it was not the end of civil twilight at that time (therefore not technically 'night'); weather reported was approx 3;000 broken and well above straight in minimums for the runway 20 approach and winds were calm so circling would not be necessary. I flew the approach and broke out into visual conditions cancelling IFR upon visual contact with the airport and runway at approximately 9;000 FT; well above approach minimums. I landed without incident. After landing and shutdown I reviewed and discovered the new footnote on the new approach plate and also checked my arrival time and discovered that due to the confusing NEW footnote and approach limitation I may have accepted an approach clearance I otherwise shouldn't have. Even the airport management was unaware of this 'NEW' change; so were the aircraft that landed after me. Pilots were confused and many shared my frustration that not only is the footnote very misleading but should have been supplemented with a NOTAM or other change notice and clarified. Pilots do our best to be familiar with all available information; but with the constantly changing landscape it is sometimes difficult when a procedure has always been authorized and all of a sudden is updated such as this scenario without any additional NOTAM or info made available. Chart change NOTAM notices should include new approach limitations such as this. This particular change should be clarified in the briefing strip as well and not as a footnote at the bottom of the approach plate. Last; if an approach is not authorized and it is not an emergency; ATC should not be authorized to issue an approach clearance.




Synopsis: CE525 Captain is informed by ATC that night instrument approaches are no longer authorized at TRK. The reporter accepts an approach clearance believing that it is not officially night time and breaks out 3;000 FT above airport elevation and cancels IFR before landing uneventfully.