Approach controller tries to redesign an NDB approach.

Attributes
ACN	447864
Time
Date	199909
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : tiw.airport
State Reference	WA
Altitude	msl single value : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : s46.tracon
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Duchess 76
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Navigation In Use	other ndb
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : instrument non precision
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 8 flight time total : 1200 flight time type : 8
ASRS Report	447864
Person 2
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : instructor
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : cfi
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Airspace Structure Chart Or Publication ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Deviation

Narrative:

During an IFR training flight on an IFR flight plan and clearance, I was receiving dual instruction for an additional class rating (amel). We proceeded from bfi via vectors to the graye LOM/NDB. Before arriving at the NDB, we were 'cleared for the NDB 35' approach, but given a restr to remain 'north of I-5.' with a wind from the north, this is impossible, as there is insufficient time to get established outbound, and then complete a course reversal (either a 90/270 or procedure turn) and comply with such a restr (which is apparently to keep aircraft clear of an MOA). This approach should be OTS if such a restr is required, and winds aloft are from the north. A visual restr ('north of I-5') is also inappropriate on an instrument approach. As I was wearing a view limiting device, there was no way for me to comply, and the PIC instructor in the right seat does not have a clear view to the left to see the ground reference. Further 'I-5' is clearly an ambiguous instruction in an urban environment -- traffic signs unreadable from 3000 ft. A r-handed approach procedure turn would be required to comply with the restr, but would result in intercept of the inbound course inside the NDB. This was suggested by the controller, but is inappropriate if the NDB approach is to be continued. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter indicated that the controller appeared to be trying to accommodate the training flight and that it was to his credit that he was. He also said that the restrs were given late in the approach and there was no time for any advance approach planning. The instructor involved indicated that he had never been given this type of restr for this particular approach, but that he does not routinely use it because of the proximity to the restr airspace and distance from the home field. In conversation after the fact, the reporter was told by a designated examiner that he would have taken the clearance and made it work with steep turns and a 90/270 degree turn. This causes the reporter and the analyst some concern.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH CTLR TRIES TO REDESIGN AN NDB APCH.

Narrative: DURING AN IFR TRAINING FLT ON AN IFR FLT PLAN AND CLRNC, I WAS RECEIVING DUAL INSTRUCTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL CLASS RATING (AMEL). WE PROCEEDED FROM BFI VIA VECTORS TO THE GRAYE LOM/NDB. BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE NDB, WE WERE 'CLRED FOR THE NDB 35' APCH, BUT GIVEN A RESTR TO REMAIN 'N OF I-5.' WITH A WIND FROM THE N, THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, AS THERE IS INSUFFICIENT TIME TO GET ESTABLISHED OUTBOUND, AND THEN COMPLETE A COURSE REVERSAL (EITHER A 90/270 OR PROC TURN) AND COMPLY WITH SUCH A RESTR (WHICH IS APPARENTLY TO KEEP ACFT CLR OF AN MOA). THIS APCH SHOULD BE OTS IF SUCH A RESTR IS REQUIRED, AND WINDS ALOFT ARE FROM THE N. A VISUAL RESTR ('N OF I-5') IS ALSO INAPPROPRIATE ON AN INST APCH. AS I WAS WEARING A VIEW LIMITING DEVICE, THERE WAS NO WAY FOR ME TO COMPLY, AND THE PIC INSTRUCTOR IN THE R SEAT DOES NOT HAVE A CLR VIEW TO THE L TO SEE THE GND REF. FURTHER 'I-5' IS CLRLY AN AMBIGUOUS INSTRUCTION IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT -- TFC SIGNS UNREADABLE FROM 3000 FT. A R-HANDED APCH PROC TURN WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE RESTR, BUT WOULD RESULT IN INTERCEPT OF THE INBOUND COURSE INSIDE THE NDB. THIS WAS SUGGESTED BY THE CTLR, BUT IS INAPPROPRIATE IF THE NDB APCH IS TO BE CONTINUED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR INDICATED THAT THE CTLR APPEARED TO BE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THE TRAINING FLT AND THAT IT WAS TO HIS CREDIT THAT HE WAS. HE ALSO SAID THAT THE RESTRS WERE GIVEN LATE IN THE APCH AND THERE WAS NO TIME FOR ANY ADVANCE APCH PLANNING. THE INSTRUCTOR INVOLVED INDICATED THAT HE HAD NEVER BEEN GIVEN THIS TYPE OF RESTR FOR THIS PARTICULAR APCH, BUT THAT HE DOES NOT ROUTINELY USE IT BECAUSE OF THE PROX TO THE RESTR AIRSPACE AND DISTANCE FROM THE HOME FIELD. IN CONVERSATION AFTER THE FACT, THE RPTR WAS TOLD BY A DESIGNATED EXAMINER THAT HE WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE CLRNC AND MADE IT WORK WITH STEEP TURNS AND A 90/270 DEG TURN. THIS CAUSES THE RPTR AND THE ANALYST SOME CONCERN.

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.