Corporate jet captain reported that while on the VOR-a approach to smo he was not allowed to circle ...

Narrative:

During initial descent into smo; was advised by center that smo was reporting ficon of 5/5/5 and wet. Datalinked current metar from xm into the G3000s onboard performance calculator and selected wet as the runway condition. With the winds (060/04 if I remember correctly); and the wet runway; the system advised me that the aircraft landing distance would exceed the landing distance available on runway 21; but that runway 3 was acceptable. I asked the center controller if he could see what runway smo was landing. The controller told me that runway 21 was in use. I advised him that we would need to either land on runway 3 or divert and the center controller told me to make my runway request with socal approach. I loaded and briefed the VOR-a circling approach into smo; planning a right downwind circle for 3 due to the restriction charted on the plate against circling northwest of the airport. I planned to circle at vapp +10; which at vapp of 108 and vapp+10 of 118 would allow me to use the category B MDA of 860 ft. On my initial check-in with socal; I also advised of my need for runway 3. The controller told me he would pass on my request. I confirmed with the next controller that he had received my request (he had) and then; not having received any negative response to my request; assumed I would be circling to runway 3. There was some confusion with the final controller before smo tower; who said that there was no approach to 3 and that weather would not allow him to vector me for 3. I confirmed the weather and MDA again for the VOR-a and was told I could not circle and that the approach was straight in for 21 only. I then had to make a last-minute decision on where to divert and ended up going to bur. In a single-pilot jet; almost at the FAF is an inappropriate place to have to be making a divert decision. I'm not sure what I could have done differently; as I advised ATC as soon as I was able of my need for an opposite-direction landing. I also think that some other operators with similar aircraft that were not aware of the ficon NOTAM may have landed on 21 using dry runway data; causing ATC to wonder why I was asking for 3.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Corporate jet Captain reported that while on the VOR-A approach to SMO he was not allowed to circle to Runway 03 and made the decision to divert just before the FAF. He required that runway due to the wind and wet runway conditions.

Narrative: During initial descent into SMO; was advised by Center that SMO was reporting FICON of 5/5/5 and wet. Datalinked current METAR from XM into the G3000s onboard performance calculator and selected wet as the runway condition. With the winds (060/04 if I remember correctly); and the wet runway; the system advised me that the aircraft landing distance would exceed the landing distance available on runway 21; but that runway 3 was acceptable. I asked the center controller if he could see what runway SMO was landing. The controller told me that runway 21 was in use. I advised him that we would need to either land on runway 3 or divert and the center controller told me to make my runway request with SoCal Approach. I loaded and briefed the VOR-A circling approach into SMO; planning a right downwind circle for 3 due to the restriction charted on the plate against circling NW of the airport. I planned to circle at Vapp +10; which at Vapp of 108 and Vapp+10 of 118 would allow me to use the Category B MDA of 860 ft. On my initial check-in with SoCal; I also advised of my need for runway 3. The controller told me he would pass on my request. I confirmed with the next controller that he had received my request (he had) and then; not having received any negative response to my request; assumed I would be circling to runway 3. There was some confusion with the final controller before SMO tower; who said that there was no approach to 3 and that weather would not allow him to vector me for 3. I confirmed the weather and MDA again for the VOR-A and was told I could not circle and that the approach was straight in for 21 only. I then had to make a last-minute decision on where to divert and ended up going to BUR. In a single-pilot jet; almost at the FAF is an inappropriate place to have to be making a divert decision. I'm not sure what I could have done differently; as I advised ATC as soon as I was able of my need for an opposite-direction landing. I also think that some other operators with similar aircraft that were not aware of the FICON NOTAM may have landed on 21 using dry runway data; causing ATC to wonder why I was asking for 3.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Attributes
ACN	1416209
Time
Date	201701
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	SMO.Airport
State Reference	CA
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Small Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Other VOR-A
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Single Pilot
Qualification	Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 45 Flight Crew Total 2900 Flight Crew Type 70
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

Corporate jet captain reported that while on the VOR-a approach to smo he was not allowed to circle to runway 03 and made the decision to divert just before the FAF. He required that runway due to the wind and wet runway conditions.