Narrative:

Being the PNF on this flight, I was working the radios and talking with ATC. The PF filed the IFR planned route as: kmwc-grr-lan-spartan 3 arrival-kozw. Everything was going as planned. We got the WX at our destination and we both agreed that we would do the visual approach. When ATC (lansing approach) asked what type of approach we would like, I then confirmed it again with the PF that he wanted the visual approach. So ATC said 'expect the visual.' we proceeded on and it was looking like we may not be getting a visual approach being IMC, so the pilot got established on the inbound bearing for the NDB approach to runway 13. The pilot then asked me to get a clearance to be cleared for the NDB approach because it didn't look like we would get a visual, so I called ATC and he cleared us for the NDB approach to runway 13, 7-8 mi out and maintain 3000 ft until established. But I noticed the PF had left the assigned altitude before being cleared, by 300 ft. I mentioned it to him but he might have not heard me. We then proceeded down to the MDA and a different controller came on saying why were we getting a clearance for the approach 2 mi from the airport? Then, said to call lansing ATC when we got on the ground, I said 'we will do that.' we then had to do a missed approach and got vectors for the VOR approach into our destination. I think contributing factors were confusion between the PF and ATC initiating the approach from a visual to an instrument. Also, the pilot leaving an assigned altitude before being cleared!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLANNING A VISUAL APCH DOES NOT WORK OUT WHEN WX UPON ARR REQUIRES AN INST APCH. THE NDB APCH IS ISSUED AND FLOWN WITHOUT PRECISION TO A MISSED APCH. A SUBSEQUENT VOR APCH IS SUCCESSFUL.

Narrative: BEING THE PNF ON THIS FLT, I WAS WORKING THE RADIOS AND TALKING WITH ATC. THE PF FILED THE IFR PLANNED RTE AS: KMWC-GRR-LAN-SPARTAN 3 ARR-KOZW. EVERYTHING WAS GOING AS PLANNED. WE GOT THE WX AT OUR DEST AND WE BOTH AGREED THAT WE WOULD DO THE VISUAL APCH. WHEN ATC (LANSING APCH) ASKED WHAT TYPE OF APCH WE WOULD LIKE, I THEN CONFIRMED IT AGAIN WITH THE PF THAT HE WANTED THE VISUAL APCH. SO ATC SAID 'EXPECT THE VISUAL.' WE PROCEEDED ON AND IT WAS LOOKING LIKE WE MAY NOT BE GETTING A VISUAL APCH BEING IMC, SO THE PLT GOT ESTABLISHED ON THE INBOUND BEARING FOR THE NDB APCH TO RWY 13. THE PLT THEN ASKED ME TO GET A CLRNC TO BE CLRED FOR THE NDB APCH BECAUSE IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE WE WOULD GET A VISUAL, SO I CALLED ATC AND HE CLRED US FOR THE NDB APCH TO RWY 13, 7-8 MI OUT AND MAINTAIN 3000 FT UNTIL ESTABLISHED. BUT I NOTICED THE PF HAD LEFT THE ASSIGNED ALT BEFORE BEING CLRED, BY 300 FT. I MENTIONED IT TO HIM BUT HE MIGHT HAVE NOT HEARD ME. WE THEN PROCEEDED DOWN TO THE MDA AND A DIFFERENT CTLR CAME ON SAYING WHY WERE WE GETTING A CLRNC FOR THE APCH 2 MI FROM THE ARPT? THEN, SAID TO CALL LANSING ATC WHEN WE GOT ON THE GND, I SAID 'WE WILL DO THAT.' WE THEN HAD TO DO A MISSED APCH AND GOT VECTORS FOR THE VOR APCH INTO OUR DEST. I THINK CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE CONFUSION BTWN THE PF AND ATC INITIATING THE APCH FROM A VISUAL TO AN INST. ALSO, THE PLT LEAVING AN ASSIGNED ALT BEFORE BEING CLRED!

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.