C172 with mke TRACON experienced multiple go-around events on RNAV (GPS) 28 approach to ues; alleged...

Narrative:

Requested vectors for the RNAV (GPS) 28 approach to ues. Controller seemed reluctant to grant request. Vectored us to an intercept about 3 miles from the FAF and cleared us for the approach. Intercept angle/vector pointed us straight at the FAF with little hope of capture prior to crossing FAF. We declared a missed approach (did not descend) and requested vectors for another attempt. This time we included a request to join the final approach course further out from the FAF. Intercept vector was given 5 miles from FAF but still only allowed for capture to occur at the FAF. Declared missed approach again and requested vectors to the other side of the airport for an ILS 10 circle runway 28. Landed without incident. During vectors for third approach; controller asked what the problem was. I explained that we needed better vectors for positive course intercept outside of the FAF to establish proper course tracking prior to descent. Controller explained that he could not offer us any better vectoring without conflicting with milwaukee international arrival and departure operations. Had I known this previously; we would not have made the request.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 with MKE TRACON experienced multiple go-around events on RNAV (GPS) 28 approach to UES; allegedly due to ATC's vectoring techniques; ATC indicated airspace confinements prohibited better vectors.

Narrative: Requested vectors for the RNAV (GPS) 28 approach to UES. Controller seemed reluctant to grant request. Vectored us to an intercept about 3 miles from the FAF and cleared us for the approach. Intercept angle/vector pointed us straight at the FAF with little hope of capture prior to crossing FAF. We declared a missed approach (did not descend) and requested vectors for another attempt. This time we included a request to join the final approach course further out from the FAF. Intercept vector was given 5 miles from FAF but still only allowed for capture to occur at the FAF. Declared missed approach again and requested vectors to the other side of the airport for an ILS 10 circle Runway 28. Landed without incident. During vectors for third approach; Controller asked what the problem was. I explained that we needed better vectors for positive course intercept outside of the FAF to establish proper course tracking prior to descent. Controller explained that he could not offer us any better vectoring without conflicting with Milwaukee International arrival and departure operations. Had I known this previously; we would not have made the request.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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	838187
Time
Date	200905
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	UES.Airport
State Reference	WI
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 34 Flight Crew Total 9300 Flight Crew Type 34
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types

C172 with mke TRACON experienced multiple go-around events on RNAV (GPS) 28 approach to ues; allegedly due to ATC's vectoring techniques; ATC indicated airspace confinements prohibited better vectors.