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

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

> 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? ;-)