Ryan Ferguson

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