ALTDEV ALT XING RESTR NOT MET. MISREAD CHART.

Narrative

THE PIC IS A PVT PLT (ASEL); INST RATED AND CURRENT. R SEAT WAS OCCUPIED BY A PAX WHO WAS ALSO A COMMERCIAL PLT (ASEL); WHO IS ALSO INST RATED (BUT NOT INST CURRENT AT THE TIME). THE FLT WAS BEING CONDUCTED UNDER PART 91 IFR. APCHING GEE; CONDITIONS WERE IMC. CLRNC FOR THE VOR-A APCH TO 6G3 WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ROC 'WESTERN' CTLR ON 123.70. FLT PLAN INDICATED THAT THE ACFT DID NOT HAVE DME: I ADVISED THE CTLR THAT RADAR IDENT OF DUSTI AND RHINE WOULD BE NECESSARY. CTLR ADVISED THAT RADAR IDENT COULD BE EXPECTED FROM NEXT CTLR. I WAS THEN ADVISED TO CONTACT ROC APCH ON 119.55 THE HDOF WAS THEN COMPLETED. UPON PASSING GEE; I WAS WELL ABOVE THE CHARTED MINIMUM ALT OF 2800 MSL; AS WELL AS MY ASSIGNED XING ALT; WHICH WAS A BIT HIGHER. CONDITIONS INCLUDED LIGHT TURB; BUT I WAS BELOW THE CLOUDS AND HAD VFR VISIBILITY. IN ATTEMPT TO EFFECTIVELY UTILIZE COCKPIT RESOURCES; PIC REQUESTED THE PAX IN THE R SEAT TO HOLD THE NOS IAP CHART FOR THE APCH. AS PIC I ALSO ASKED THE CHART HOLDER TO READ THE MINIMUM ALT FOR THE SEGMENT BEING FLOWN. REFERRING TO THE PROFILE SEGMENT OF THE IAP; THE CHART HOLDER STATED MINIMUM ALT WAS 1700 FT. (A RUBBER BAND HID THE WORD 'DUSTI' ABOVE THE 'GEE 11.3 DME.') HE SAW THE GEE; AND TOOK THE 2800 FT TO BE THE ALT FOR XING GEE INSTEAD OF THE ALT FOR XING DUSTI. I CONTINUED DSCNT PAST 2800 FT TO SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 2000 FT. AT APPROX THIS TIME; I PERSONALLY VIEWED THE IAP CHART AGAIN (I HAD LOOKED AT IT BEFORE BEGINNING THE APCH); NOTICED THAT 2800 FT WAS THE MINIMUM XING DUSTI; REALIZED THAT DUSTI HAD NOT YET BEEN CALLED BY THE CTLR; AND COMMENCED A FULL PWR CLB BACK TO 2800. AT 2800 FT WE WERE BELOW THE CLOUDS AND HAD VFR VISIBILITY. THE CTLR ON 119.55 WAS DIRECTING CONSIDERABLE TFC: THE FREQ WAS QUITE CONGESTED. WHEN ASKED IF WE WERE APCHING DUSTI; HE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE THEN 1 MI 'INSIDE' OF DUSTI. HE HAD BEEN TOO BUSY WITH OTHER TFC TO IDENT DUSTI. THUS; IT IS POSSIBLE THAT DSCNT BELOW PUBLISHED MINIMUMS MAY NOT HAVE OCCURRED. NONETHELESS; IT MAY HAVE; AND CERTAINLY COULD HAVE. AT THIS POINT; AS THE CTLR STATED I WAS 'INSIDE' OF DUSTI; I COMMENCED DSCNT TOWARD 1700 FT. SHORTLY THEREAFTER; IN VFR CONDITIONS; I IDENTED THE TOWN JUST S OF 6G3; AND CALLED APCH TO CANCEL IFR. APCH ACCOMMODATED IMMEDIATELY AND APOLOGIZED FOR ALSO MISSING THE IDENT OF RHINE. FLT WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT. ANALYSIS: BASIC PROB WAS PIC DEPENDING ON A PLT THAT WAS INST RATED BUT NOT INST CURRENT TO READ AN IAP AND PROVIDE MINIMUM ALT INFO TO PIC. THIS WAS COMPOUNDED BY THE DISTRACTION OF WORKING WITH A BUSY CTLR WHO MISSED RADAR IDENT OF A KEY STEP-DOWN FIX; AND LATER; THE FAF. IT WAS ALSO COMPOUNDED BY A RUBBER BAND; HOLDING THE NOS IAP OPEN; WHICH OBSCURED THE WORD 'DUSTI' ON THE PROFILE VIEW. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEW RING-BOUND NOS CHARTS THAT WILL NOT NEED RUBBER BANDS TO HOLD THEM OPEN! AN ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IS THAT THE PLAN VIEW OF THE SUBJECT APCH 'STARTS' AT GEE; BUT THE PROFILE VIEW 'STARTS' AT DUSTI. LESSONS LEARNED: FIRST; WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE CONVINCED THAT 2 PLTS ARE BETTER THAN 1; ESPECIALLY IN IMC; I AM ALSO CONVINCED THAT IN SITS WHERE 1 PLT IS FLYING THE APCH AND THE OTHER PERFORMING KEY NAVIGATIONAL DUTIES; BOTH SHOULD BE PERSONALLY REVIEWING THE ACTUAL CHARTS OR IAP. INDEED; DUPLICATE COPIES WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. SECOND: WHEN RELYING ON AN ASSISTANT; PIC SHOULD ENSURE ASSISTANT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE EXACT SUBJECT MATTER. THIRD: ALWAYS TRY TO BACK UP RADAR IDENT WITH SUPPLEMENTARY MEANS. (I HAVE FLOWN THIS APCH NUMEROUS TIMES BEFORE; BOTH WITH AND WITHOUT DME. WHEN WITHOUT DME; NEVER HAS THE CTLR MISSED AN IDENT; UNTIL THIS FLT).