Narrative:

I was vectored for a visual approach to the capital city airport. We approached from the southwest and were told to descend and maintain 2500 ft. The airport became visible as we crossed a hilly area southwest of the airport which rises to approximately 1000 ft MSL. We called airport in sight and were cleared for the visual approach to runway 30. At this point we were positioned approximately 1 NM from the approach end of runway 30, slightly left of centerline and headed 090 degrees. We shot through the runway 30 final and continued eastbound in an attempt to lose altitude to complete a normal approach and landing. At a point of 3/4 NM and 100 degrees from the airport at 1200 ft MSL, our approach was called off and we were vectored for a second visual approach. No traffic was inconvenienced by the situation, however, we were informed that we violated the class D airspace for the neighboring airport, mdt. When we were cleared for the approach we were about 1 NM from the end of runway 30 and had 2150 ft to lose. This made the approach impossible without some additional maneuvering. My student, a private multi engine rated pilot, was flying the aircraft and I took control at the point that the approach was called off. At the time the winds were 270 degrees at 6-10 KTS, which would have favored runway 26 which would have suited our aircraft better because of length (5000 ft versus 3894 ft) and would have given us ample time to descend. On the second approach, we were vectored to about the same position and were at 1500 ft and still had to make a steeper than normal approach to runway 30. I believe that a problem exists in the manner in which capital city is setting up and issuing visual approachs. Coming from the southwest, the airport becomes visible very late and at a high altitude such as 2500 ft MSL, makes a normal descent in a high performance airplane to runway 30 impossible. In these sits runway 26 should be issued (as far as winds were concerned in this case runway 26 was favored anyway). Another solution would be to get the aircraft lower prior to issuing the visual approach. As additional evidence that this is a problem, the aircraft preceding us made his approach toward runway 26 instead of runway 30, for reasons I am not aware of.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN INSTRUCTOR AND A STUDENT IN A C310 WERE VECTORED TO A FINAL APCH TO RWY 30 AT CXY. THE SURROUNDING TERRAIN AND THE ACFT'S ALT PREVENTED THE PLTS FROM SEEING THE ARPT UNTIL CLOSE TO THE RWY AND THE STUDENT WAS UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE APCH AND ON THE GAR THE INSTRUCTOR WANDERED INTO MDT'S CLASS D AIRSPACE. THE INSTRUCTOR COMPLAINS ABOUT APCH CTL'S VECTORING TECHNIQUE AND RWY SELECTION.

Narrative: I WAS VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO THE CAPITAL CITY ARPT. WE APCHED FROM THE SW AND WERE TOLD TO DSND AND MAINTAIN 2500 FT. THE ARPT BECAME VISIBLE AS WE CROSSED A HILLY AREA SW OF THE ARPT WHICH RISES TO APPROX 1000 FT MSL. WE CALLED ARPT IN SIGHT AND WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 30. AT THIS POINT WE WERE POSITIONED APPROX 1 NM FROM THE APCH END OF RWY 30, SLIGHTLY L OF CTRLINE AND HEADED 090 DEGS. WE SHOT THROUGH THE RWY 30 FINAL AND CONTINUED EBOUND IN AN ATTEMPT TO LOSE ALT TO COMPLETE A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. AT A POINT OF 3/4 NM AND 100 DEGS FROM THE ARPT AT 1200 FT MSL, OUR APCH WAS CALLED OFF AND WE WERE VECTORED FOR A SECOND VISUAL APCH. NO TFC WAS INCONVENIENCED BY THE SIT, HOWEVER, WE WERE INFORMED THAT WE VIOLATED THE CLASS D AIRSPACE FOR THE NEIGHBORING ARPT, MDT. WHEN WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH WE WERE ABOUT 1 NM FROM THE END OF RWY 30 AND HAD 2150 FT TO LOSE. THIS MADE THE APCH IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT SOME ADDITIONAL MANEUVERING. MY STUDENT, A PVT MULTI ENG RATED PLT, WAS FLYING THE ACFT AND I TOOK CTL AT THE POINT THAT THE APCH WAS CALLED OFF. AT THE TIME THE WINDS WERE 270 DEGS AT 6-10 KTS, WHICH WOULD HAVE FAVORED RWY 26 WHICH WOULD HAVE SUITED OUR ACFT BETTER BECAUSE OF LENGTH (5000 FT VERSUS 3894 FT) AND WOULD HAVE GIVEN US AMPLE TIME TO DSND. ON THE SECOND APCH, WE WERE VECTORED TO ABOUT THE SAME POS AND WERE AT 1500 FT AND STILL HAD TO MAKE A STEEPER THAN NORMAL APCH TO RWY 30. I BELIEVE THAT A PROB EXISTS IN THE MANNER IN WHICH CAPITAL CITY IS SETTING UP AND ISSUING VISUAL APCHS. COMING FROM THE SW, THE ARPT BECOMES VISIBLE VERY LATE AND AT A HIGH ALT SUCH AS 2500 FT MSL, MAKES A NORMAL DSCNT IN A HIGH PERFORMANCE AIRPLANE TO RWY 30 IMPOSSIBLE. IN THESE SITS RWY 26 SHOULD BE ISSUED (AS FAR AS WINDS WERE CONCERNED IN THIS CASE RWY 26 WAS FAVORED ANYWAY). ANOTHER SOLUTION WOULD BE TO GET THE ACFT LOWER PRIOR TO ISSUING THE VISUAL APCH. AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS A PROB, THE ACFT PRECEDING US MADE HIS APCH TOWARD RWY 26 INSTEAD OF RWY 30, FOR REASONS I AM NOT AWARE OF.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.