Narrative:

Took off early to avoid approaching weather and first 45 minutes of the flight was uneventful. Throughout the flight I was following xm weather and was planning to divert to newport news if needed. However; the forecast indicated the front was stationary which turned out to be spot on. As I got closer I updated my plans and thought about landing at norfolk. When norfolk approach cleared me for the ILS 5 to cpk via nalde I paused. I had been listening to cpk's AWOS for some time and knew the wind was fine; the ceiling was 800 ft; with good visibility and distant lightning. This matched up nicely with what xm weather was showing so I felt comfortable completing the flight as filed. However; I noted that nalde (if/IAF) was in the yellow returns and likely the distant convective activity noted on the AWOS. I said unable and requested the GPS 23 approach. After a short pause ATC came back and cleared me to cpk via the GPS 23 approach and give me vectors to the IAF (norfolk VOR at 3;000 ft). This was the first indication that ATC would put me into danger. Approaching cpk from the south was not a safe option for a light aircraft. I programmed my GPS and about this time a close lighting strike energized the skin of the plane; which doesn't have static wicks. The result was being able to transmit 5x5 but just barely make out ATC over what seemed like a very loud failed squelch. This was determined by a radio check with norfolk. I broke out my standby radio but just flying the airplane required all my attention so I didn't try to tune it. Things settled down; the radio reception got progressively better and I even broke out into the clear for a bit and ATC asked my how the ride was which I informed them it was currently pretty darn good. No sooner had I spoken when I was back in the woods working to keep the CDI centered as the plane jerked around. Everything was going as planned when ATC vectored me to zimon (if). I accepted the change; reprogrammed the GPS and when the CDI centered I was in a right bank and had lost 200 ft. I corrected and noted my new course to zimon and twisted the CDI outer ring and proceeded. The turbulence made changing anything difficult and the rain was very heavy. Heavy like if you were driving on the freeway you would pull over vice continuing on. Just as I got things settled; ATC vectored me to fubsy (FAF) at this time all I wanted to do is get to zimon and fly 228 degrees to the runway following the approach plate. I felt because I had accepted zimon I didn't really have a choice but to accept fubsy. ATC basically turned my FAF into the IAF. At this point I was sure ATC was trying to put me into danger and I was getting angry. I acknowledge ATC and programmed the GPS. When done I was in a right dive with wings at nearly 40 degrees and had lost 400 ft. I was in an unusual attitude and if not for my training and a working attitude indicator I would have been a statistic. I'm not sure how close I came to fubsy but just as I was going to call missed I broke out; saw the runway REIL; told ATC I had the runway in sight and canceled my clearance. The landing was uneventful and actually one of my best. As I taxied up to the fueling area the sky opened up and the rain I had just been flying though seemed to have followed me. I taxied to the ramp and called the tower in the hopes of finding out what I had done to the controller to justify him to try and kill me. I talked to his supervisor and he let me know that none of the controllers currently on watch were pilots that they were just doing what they had been trained to do. My controller was vectoring me around his airspace to maintain separation for norfolk's traffic and that if I needed the full approach I should have asked for it. I got the impression that the RNAV (GPS) runway 23 for cpk is actually never flown as published. Two days later I went flying with my former cfii and told him what happened and we practiced intercepts; holding and conducted three approaches. I specifically requested the RNAV (GPS) 23 to cpk 'full approach' and norfolk responded unable. The plane that I fly is a very capable IFR platform and I feel it can safely fly in hard IFR with green returns. Having ATC initially attempt to vector me into yellow returns that could actually be red due to xm weather lag is unacceptable. Not understanding that a GA plane in turbulent; heavy rain IFR might want to fly an approach as published resulted in me nearly staining my shorts or worse. Turning a FAF into the IAF for no apparent reason other than to get me down sooner or keep the airspace 'clear' is unacceptable. If norfolk's SOP is to typically not allow the RNAV (GPS) runway 23 at cpk to be flow as published this should be noted on the plate. I've studied this approach many times and the runway alignment and the approach give a new pilot no indication that norfolk would not want to allow pilots to fly this as published. Just the opposite; the published approach seems better in clearing the airspace than multiple vectors turning a FAF into the IAF. I do want to say the controller I worked with was very friendly as he tried to kill me. Note - during the last 20 minutes of the flight the autopilot was turned off; as it wasn't able to keep up with the increasing turbulence.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA32 pilot experiences difficulty maintaining altitude and heading while being vectored to successive fixes on the RNAV to Runway 23 at CPK in heavy rain.

Narrative: Took off early to avoid approaching weather and first 45 minutes of the flight was uneventful. Throughout the flight I was following XM weather and was planning to divert to Newport News if needed. However; the forecast indicated the front was stationary which turned out to be spot on. As I got closer I updated my plans and thought about landing at Norfolk. When Norfolk Approach cleared me for the ILS 5 to CPK via NALDE I paused. I had been listening to CPK's AWOS for some time and knew the wind was fine; the ceiling was 800 FT; with good visibility and distant lightning. This matched up nicely with what XM weather was showing so I felt comfortable completing the flight as filed. However; I noted that NALDE (IF/IAF) was in the yellow returns and likely the distant convective activity noted on the AWOS. I said unable and requested the GPS 23 approach. After a short pause ATC came back and cleared me to CPK via the GPS 23 approach and give me vectors to the IAF (Norfolk VOR at 3;000 FT). This was the first indication that ATC would put me into danger. Approaching CPK from the south was NOT a safe option for a light aircraft. I programmed my GPS and about this time a close lighting strike energized the skin of the plane; which doesn't have static wicks. The result was being able to transmit 5x5 but just barely make out ATC over what seemed like a very loud failed squelch. This was determined by a radio check with Norfolk. I broke out my standby radio but just flying the airplane required all my attention so I didn't try to tune it. Things settled down; the radio reception got progressively better and I even broke out into the clear for a bit and ATC asked my how the ride was which I informed them it was currently pretty darn good. No sooner had I spoken when I was back in the woods working to keep the CDI centered as the plane jerked around. Everything was going as planned when ATC vectored me to ZIMON (IF). I accepted the change; reprogrammed the GPS and when the CDI centered I was in a right bank and had lost 200 FT. I corrected and noted my new course to ZIMON and twisted the CDI outer ring and proceeded. The turbulence made changing anything difficult and the rain was very heavy. Heavy like if you were driving on the freeway you would pull over vice continuing on. Just as I got things settled; ATC vectored me to FUBSY (FAF) at this time all I wanted to do is get to ZIMON and fly 228 degrees to the runway following the approach plate. I felt because I had accepted ZIMON I didn't really have a choice but to accept FUBSY. ATC basically turned my FAF into the IAF. At this point I was sure ATC was trying to put me into danger and I was getting angry. I acknowledge ATC and programmed the GPS. When done I was in a right dive with wings at nearly 40 degrees and had lost 400 FT. I was in an unusual attitude and if not for my training and a working attitude indicator I would have been a statistic. I'm not sure how close I came to FUBSY but just as I was going to call missed I broke out; saw the runway REIL; told ATC I had the runway in sight and canceled my clearance. The landing was uneventful and actually one of my best. As I taxied up to the fueling area the sky opened up and the rain I had just been flying though seemed to have followed me. I taxied to the ramp and called the Tower in the hopes of finding out what I had done to the Controller to justify him to try and kill me. I talked to his Supervisor and he let me know that none of the controllers currently on watch were pilots that they were just doing what they had been trained to do. My Controller was vectoring me around his airspace to maintain separation for Norfolk's traffic and that if I needed the full approach I should have asked for it. I got the impression that the RNAV (GPS) Runway 23 for CPK is actually NEVER flown as published. Two days later I went flying with my former CFII and told him what happened and we practiced intercepts; holding and conducted three approaches. I specifically requested the RNAV (GPS) 23 to CPK 'full approach' and Norfolk responded UNABLE. The plane that I fly is a very capable IFR platform and I feel it can safely fly in hard IFR with green returns. Having ATC initially attempt to vector me into yellow returns that could actually be red due to XM weather lag is unacceptable. Not understanding that a GA plane in turbulent; heavy rain IFR might want to fly an approach as published resulted in me nearly staining my shorts or worse. Turning a FAF into the IAF for no apparent reason other than to get me down sooner or keep the airspace 'clear' is unacceptable. If Norfolk's SOP is to typically not allow the RNAV (GPS) Runway 23 at CPK to be flow as published this should be noted on the plate. I've studied this approach many times and the runway alignment and the approach give a new pilot no indication that Norfolk would not want to allow pilots to fly this as published. Just the opposite; the published approach seems better in clearing the airspace than multiple vectors turning a FAF into the IAF. I do want to say the Controller I worked with was very friendly as he tried to kill me. NOTE - During the last 20 minutes of the flight the autopilot was turned off; as it wasn't able to keep up with the increasing turbulence.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.