Another IFR "oops"

Another one of those things I guess I should have been ready for sneaked up
on me this morning.

We were going from BFM to EET (Shelby County Airport, Alabaster, Alabama)
and the ceiling was right at minimums for the RNAV 33 approach, and below
minimums for the VOR-A. Naturally, I wanted the RNAV 33.

There's no ATIS at EET, so no particular approach was being advertised. When
Montgomery approach handed us off to Birmingham, BHM approach told me to
expect the VOR-A. I asked him "...any chance we can do the RNAV 33?"

"Nope. It's not in my airspace. You should have asked Montgomery for that
one. Standy by and I'll see if they'll take you back."

We got handed back to MGM, but by the time MGM was ready for us, we were
right on top of the IAF (IXUSE) and 1,900' high. Not a serious problem,
really, because by then I had slowed to 90 kts, but it made the first part
of the approach more rushed than it needed to be. Nevertheless, we made it
in just under the cloud deck

The interesting thing is BHM's comment that I "...should have asked
Montgomery for that one." How was I to know that? BHM is named on plates as
the approach facility for EET. There's no ATIS at EET. What should I have
done to find out that BHM couldn't give me the RNAV 33 approach?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Jon Kraus wrote:

snip
My
instructor didn't know what to say except to point out that I was so
far behind the plane that if we were a minimums I never would have been
able to make the approach. I really didn't know what to say except for
I'll do better next time. All I could do on the ride hope is get a good
laugh from my stupidity. I have had so much on my mind that I probably
shouldn't have been flying. Not IFR any way's.

As you undoubtedly know, the absolute best time to make that kind of
mistake is with your instructor or safety pilot. That lesson served
multiple purposes.

--
Peter

I've got a better oops then that Dan. This morning I was doing some approaches
with my instructor. We went to Anderson Indiana (AID) and shot a couple of
ILS's and a VOR-A. They were fine. I requested the GPS 36 back at Indianapolis
Terry and was cleared direct to the airport. So I just flew direct to the
airport... The problem was that that is all I did, fly direct to the airport...
I didn't set anything else up for the approach ! ! ! I really don't know what
the hell I was thinking but as we got close to Terry my instructor said "are you
set up for the approach?" I realized what I had done but it was too late. My
instructor said "just take off the foggles and look". I did and there was the
runway about 1000 feet below me. Needless to say I had to slip all the way to
the runway. At least I greased the landing (not a big conciliation). My
instructor didn't know what to say except to point out that I was so far behind
the plane that if we were a minimums I never would have been able to make the
approach. I really didn't know what to say except for I'll do better next
time. All I could do on the ride hope is get a good laugh from my stupidity. I
have had so much on my mind that I probably shouldn't have been flying. Not IFR
any way's.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL
Student-IA

Dan Luke wrote:

Another one of those things I guess I should have been ready for sneaked up
on me this morning.

We were going from BFM to EET (Shelby County Airport, Alabaster, Alabama)
and the ceiling was right at minimums for the RNAV 33 approach, and below
minimums for the VOR-A. Naturally, I wanted the RNAV 33.

There's no ATIS at EET, so no particular approach was being advertised. When
Montgomery approach handed us off to Birmingham, BHM approach told me to
expect the VOR-A. I asked him "...any chance we can do the RNAV 33?"

"Nope. It's not in my airspace. You should have asked Montgomery for that
one. Standy by and I'll see if they'll take you back."

We got handed back to MGM, but by the time MGM was ready for us, we were
right on top of the IAF (IXUSE) and 1,900' high. Not a serious problem,
really, because by then I had slowed to 90 kts, but it made the first part
of the approach more rushed than it needed to be. Nevertheless, we made it
in just under the cloud deck

The interesting thing is BHM's comment that I "...should have asked
Montgomery for that one." How was I to know that? BHM is named on plates as
the approach facility for EET. There's no ATIS at EET. What should I have
done to find out that BHM couldn't give me the RNAV 33 approach?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
Another one of those things I guess I should have been ready for sneaked up
on me this morning.

I don't see why you feel you 'should have been ready'.

There's no ATIS at EET, so no particular approach was being advertised. When
Montgomery approach handed us off to Birmingham, BHM approach told me to
expect the VOR-A. I asked him "...any chance we can do the RNAV 33?"

"Nope. It's not in my airspace. You should have asked Montgomery for that
one. Standy by and I'll see if they'll take you back."

....

The interesting thing is BHM's comment that I "...should have asked
Montgomery for that one." How was I to know that? BHM is named on plates as
the approach facility for EET. There's no ATIS at EET. What should I have
done to find out that BHM couldn't give me the RNAV 33 approach?

I don't think there's a thing you could have done. BHM was listed
as the approach facility, I would have waited until transferred to BHM
to ask for the approach I wanted. If it was less than 30 nm out, might
query ATC facility I'm talking to "N123 requests RNAV 33 at EET", which
would probably get you a "I'll be handing you off in a minute, ask them"
response most of the time but would have helped this time.

A while back on these newsgroups, I was asking how to get a chart of
the airspace different facilities control. I was told I might as well
ask for the moon, more likely.

At a guess, does it look feasible it might be one of these "1 IAF
in his airspace, 2 in mine" things, where there isn't really provision
to indicate different facilities?

What I don't understand is why the BHM controller didn't just
coordinate with Montgomery for you instead of shipping you back.
They obviously can talk to each other -- why wouldn't it be easier
to just have Montgomery approve whatever it was BHM needed for you
to fly the approach, since the airport was apparently in their
airspace?

Oh well. Be interested to see what other answers you get,
Sydney

Dunno. Plate says Montgomery, I'd expect to talk to Montgomery about the
approach. It's that simple.

-Ryan

Dan Luke wrote:

Another one of those things I guess I should have been ready for sneaked up
on me this morning.

We were going from BFM to EET (Shelby County Airport, Alabaster, Alabama)
and the ceiling was right at minimums for the RNAV 33 approach, and below
minimums for the VOR-A. Naturally, I wanted the RNAV 33.

There's no ATIS at EET, so no particular approach was being advertised. When
Montgomery approach handed us off to Birmingham, BHM approach told me to
expect the VOR-A. I asked him "...any chance we can do the RNAV 33?"

"Nope. It's not in my airspace. You should have asked Montgomery for that
one. Standy by and I'll see if they'll take you back."

We got handed back to MGM, but by the time MGM was ready for us, we were
right on top of the IAF (IXUSE) and 1,900' high. Not a serious problem,
really, because by then I had slowed to 90 kts, but it made the first part
of the approach more rushed than it needed to be. Nevertheless, we made it
in just under the cloud deck

The interesting thing is BHM's comment that I "...should have asked
Montgomery for that one." How was I to know that? BHM is named on plates as
the approach facility for EET. There's no ATIS at EET. What should I have
done to find out that BHM couldn't give me the RNAV 33 approach?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Which plate says Montgomery? The NACO plates for both approaches say
Birmingham-- are you using Jeppesen?

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
...
Dunno. Plate says Montgomery, I'd expect to talk to Montgomery about the
approach. It's that simple.

-Ryan

Dan Luke wrote:

Another one of those things I guess I should have been ready for sneaked
up
on me this morning.

We were going from BFM to EET (Shelby County Airport, Alabaster,
Alabama)
and the ceiling was right at minimums for the RNAV 33 approach, and
below
minimums for the VOR-A. Naturally, I wanted the RNAV 33.

There's no ATIS at EET, so no particular approach was being advertised.
When
Montgomery approach handed us off to Birmingham, BHM approach told me to
expect the VOR-A. I asked him "...any chance we can do the RNAV 33?"

"Nope. It's not in my airspace. You should have asked Montgomery for
that
one. Standy by and I'll see if they'll take you back."

We got handed back to MGM, but by the time MGM was ready for us, we
were
right on top of the IAF (IXUSE) and 1,900' high. Not a serious problem,
really, because by then I had slowed to 90 kts, but it made the first
part
of the approach more rushed than it needed to be. Nevertheless, we made
it
in just under the cloud deck

The interesting thing is BHM's comment that I "...should have asked
Montgomery for that one." How was I to know that? BHM is named on plates
as
the approach facility for EET. There's no ATIS at EET. What should I
have
done to find out that BHM couldn't give me the RNAV 33 approach?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote:
I don't see why you feel you 'should have been ready'.

That ol' PIC thing. I'm trying to determine if I missed some available
information necessary to the safe completion of the flight.

I don't think there's a thing you could have done. BHM was listed
as the approach facility, I would have waited until transferred to BHM
to ask for the approach I wanted. If it was less than 30 nm out, might
query ATC facility I'm talking to "N123 requests RNAV 33 at EET", which
would probably get you a "I'll be handing you off in a minute, ask them"
response most of the time but would have helped this time.

I think that's the right answer: it's a situational awareness issue. Next
time I'm getting that close to a little airport destination and haven't been
handed off, I'll ask.

What I don't understand is why the BHM controller didn't just
coordinate with Montgomery for you instead of shipping you back.
They obviously can talk to each other -- why wouldn't it be easier
to just have Montgomery approve whatever it was BHM needed for
you to fly the approach, since the airport was apparently in their
airspace?

Or, why didn't MGM say something? Surely they know by now they own the
airspace for that approach. Don't TRACONs have special procedures for such
situations?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I don't think there's a thing you could have done. BHM was listed
as the approach facility, I would have waited until transferred to BHM
to ask for the approach I wanted. If it was less than 30 nm out, might
query ATC facility I'm talking to "N123 requests RNAV 33 at EET", which
would probably get you a "I'll be handing you off in a minute, ask them"
response most of the time but would have helped this time.

A while back on these newsgroups, I was asking how to get a chart of
the airspace different facilities control. I was told I might as well
ask for the moon, more likely.

My instructor told me that the airspace that a particular facility controls
can change on a day to day basis, depending on which runways are in use at
the various airports in the affected areas. Airspaces tend to overlap, so
when the winds shift around, causing different runways to be in use, the
tracons will adjust their airspace boundaries. Or something like that.

Bottom line is exactly what was said... use the charts as a guide, not as an
absolute rule for who owns the airspace on a given day. And ignore ATC when
they "complain" that you should be able to read their minds.

I think that your instructor has overstated the cast to some extent. Sector
boundaries are not changed all that often, and certainly do not depend on
wind direction. There are letters of agreement between terminal and center
facilities outlining who is responsible for what. I have in my hot little
hand a "Depiction of Seattle Approach Airspace and Sector 01 and 31 of
Seattle ARTCC airspace" and it says nothing about wind or anything
else...there are some overlays, where Approach controls the airspace below
certain altitudes, but that's it.

Sector responsibilities can change with the wind, though. The controller on
120.4 can be Seattle Departure one day and Seattle Approach the next,
depending on which way Sea-Tac is landing.

I'm sure that Steve M has a more cogent explanation.

Bob Gardner

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote in message
...
I don't think there's a thing you could have done. BHM was listed
as the approach facility, I would have waited until transferred to BHM
to ask for the approach I wanted. If it was less than 30 nm out, might
query ATC facility I'm talking to "N123 requests RNAV 33 at EET", which
would probably get you a "I'll be handing you off in a minute, ask them"
response most of the time but would have helped this time.

A while back on these newsgroups, I was asking how to get a chart of
the airspace different facilities control. I was told I might as well
ask for the moon, more likely.

My instructor told me that the airspace that a particular facility
controls
can change on a day to day basis, depending on which runways are in use at
the various airports in the affected areas. Airspaces tend to overlap, so
when the winds shift around, causing different runways to be in use, the
tracons will adjust their airspace boundaries. Or something like that.

Bottom line is exactly what was said... use the charts as a guide, not as
an
absolute rule for who owns the airspace on a given day. And ignore ATC
when
they "complain" that you should be able to read their minds.

Ryan Ferguson wrote:

Dunno. Plate says Montgomery, I'd expect to talk to Montgomery about the
approach. It's that simple.

Why do you expect such perfection from the FAA? Do you expect the same from the
IRS or the CIA? ;-)