Pilots circle-to-land, high on final, go around initiated, normal landing accomplished.

Attributes
ACN	544636
Time
Date	200204
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : jac.airport
State Reference	WY
Altitude	msl single value : 7400
Environment
Flight Conditions	Marginal
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : jac.tower
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Conquest I/Conquest II
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Navigation In Use	other other vortac
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing : go around
Route In Use	approach : circling approach : visual approach : traffic pattern
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : cfi pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 90 flight time total : 5800 flight time type : 2000
ASRS Report	544636
Person 2
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather other anomaly other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : executed go around none taken : anomaly accepted other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Airport ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

I was on the VOR/GPS 36 jac airport. On initial call-up, I provided tower controller with ATIS and had been cleared for an approach by ZLC. WX called for 2300 ft scattered and 5000 ft broken, so we elected for the VOR/GPS 36 approach, arriving from the south. Jac tower asked us for PIREP on WX. I fly to jackson regularly, and am familiar with this approach. We make trips into jackson every 2 weeks. As the approach continued, we were advised of ceilings lowering. We broke out above minimums with approximately 2 mi visibility. To the north of the airport we could see that the ceilings were much lower, with some rain shower activity, but clear view of entire airport. We were then cleared for a circle-to-land on the opposing runway, runway 8. We circled to land but PF (first officer) flew a tight pattern, concerned with deteriorating visibility to the north of the airport. On approach to runway 18, we were too high and elected to make a go around. We then requested a landing on runway 36, which tower approved. Landing was uneventful with what appeared to be a direct crosswind from the west. This, we understood, was the reason for overshooting the final on the circle-to-land approach. Tower seemed to be frustrated, but were asking us for PIREPS of temperatures aloft and icing conditions encountered during the approach. This increased our workload and frustration, when trying to make an approach in marginal conditions. We asked why we were not given runway 36 in the first place and tower advised that due to winds they had to issue circle-to-land clearance, whereby it was safer and practical to land straight in from this approach. I attempted to call tower immediately afterwards by telephone. The FBO advised me that the jac tower does not want their number given out. After persisting, I was given the number and spoke directly to the tower controller and expressed our frustration and advised him that increased workload at critical phase of flight by giving PIREPS was not desirable.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLTS CIRCLE-TO-LAND, HIGH ON FINAL, GAR INITIATED, NORMAL LNDG ACCOMPLISHED.

Narrative: I WAS ON THE VOR/GPS 36 JAC ARPT. ON INITIAL CALL-UP, I PROVIDED TWR CTLR WITH ATIS AND HAD BEEN CLRED FOR AN APCH BY ZLC. WX CALLED FOR 2300 FT SCATTERED AND 5000 FT BROKEN, SO WE ELECTED FOR THE VOR/GPS 36 APCH, ARRIVING FROM THE S. JAC TWR ASKED US FOR PIREP ON WX. I FLY TO JACKSON REGULARLY, AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THIS APCH. WE MAKE TRIPS INTO JACKSON EVERY 2 WKS. AS THE APCH CONTINUED, WE WERE ADVISED OF CEILINGS LOWERING. WE BROKE OUT ABOVE MINIMUMS WITH APPROX 2 MI VISIBILITY. TO THE N OF THE ARPT WE COULD SEE THAT THE CEILINGS WERE MUCH LOWER, WITH SOME RAIN SHOWER ACTIVITY, BUT CLR VIEW OF ENTIRE ARPT. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR A CIRCLE-TO-LAND ON THE OPPOSING RWY, RWY 8. WE CIRCLED TO LAND BUT PF (FO) FLEW A TIGHT PATTERN, CONCERNED WITH DETERIORATING VISIBILITY TO THE N OF THE ARPT. ON APCH TO RWY 18, WE WERE TOO HIGH AND ELECTED TO MAKE A GAR. WE THEN REQUESTED A LNDG ON RWY 36, WHICH TWR APPROVED. LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL WITH WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DIRECT XWIND FROM THE W. THIS, WE UNDERSTOOD, WAS THE REASON FOR OVERSHOOTING THE FINAL ON THE CIRCLE-TO-LAND APCH. TWR SEEMED TO BE FRUSTRATED, BUT WERE ASKING US FOR PIREPS OF TEMPS ALOFT AND ICING CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE APCH. THIS INCREASED OUR WORKLOAD AND FRUSTRATION, WHEN TRYING TO MAKE AN APCH IN MARGINAL CONDITIONS. WE ASKED WHY WE WERE NOT GIVEN RWY 36 IN THE FIRST PLACE AND TWR ADVISED THAT DUE TO WINDS THEY HAD TO ISSUE CIRCLE-TO-LAND CLRNC, WHEREBY IT WAS SAFER AND PRACTICAL TO LAND STRAIGHT IN FROM THIS APCH. I ATTEMPTED TO CALL TWR IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS BY TELEPHONE. THE FBO ADVISED ME THAT THE JAC TWR DOES NOT WANT THEIR NUMBER GIVEN OUT. AFTER PERSISTING, I WAS GIVEN THE NUMBER AND SPOKE DIRECTLY TO THE TWR CTLR AND EXPRESSED OUR FRUSTRATION AND ADVISED HIM THAT INCREASED WORKLOAD AT CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT BY GIVING PIREPS WAS NOT DESIRABLE.

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.