IFR corporate aircraft inbound to cma was denied request for RNAV approach from ZLA; reportedly beca...

Narrative:

On an instrument flight to camarillo ca (cma); close to midnight with destination tower closed; I had AWOS weather indicating marginal VFR at destination with scattered ceiling at 700. I was approaching the airport from the south on V27 to vtu. ATC was ZLA and they recommended a visual approach. I stated a preference for the RNAV-Y approach that would allow for a descent below the possible deteriorating conditions. ATC asked what approach fix I would like to start with and I gave a nearby IAF listed for the RNAV-Y approach. ATC replied that I could not do that as it interfered with approaches to lax and said I should use another starting fix. I replied that I could use any of the additional fixes down to the FAF but the answer I got was that they would not work either as they also interfered with approaches to lax. At this point I felt that I was getting a serious run-around by ATC as there was no other approach that I could use into cma. I had the cma beacon in sight from 4000 feet and 15 miles south of the field so I said I was cancelling IFR. I did cancel IFR and changed to the cma advisory frequency while I proceeded with the visual descent. About 5 miles out it became obvious there was mixed weather at cma. West of the field as broken at about 700; over the airport was scattered at 700; and east of the field was clear. In a visual approach to runway 26; I lost sight of the runway more than once but had a solid visual on the runway from 600 feet down. I landed without event. I feel this was marginal VFR at best and more likely IMC. I also felt this was a condition forced on me by ATC who basically seemed to not want to give me the RNAV-Y approach.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IFR corporate aircraft inbound to CMA was denied request for RNAV approach from ZLA; reportedly because the procedure routing interfered with LAX traffic.

Narrative: On an instrument flight to Camarillo CA (CMA); close to midnight with destination tower closed; I had AWOS weather indicating marginal VFR at destination with scattered ceiling at 700. I was approaching the airport from the south on V27 to VTU. ATC was ZLA and they recommended a visual approach. I stated a preference for the RNAV-Y approach that would allow for a descent below the possible deteriorating conditions. ATC asked what approach fix I would like to start with and I gave a nearby IAF listed for the RNAV-Y approach. ATC replied that I could not do that as it interfered with approaches to LAX and said I should use another starting fix. I replied that I could use any of the additional fixes down to the FAF but the answer I got was that they would not work either as they also interfered with approaches to LAX. At this point I felt that I was getting a serious run-around by ATC as there was no other approach that I could use into CMA. I had the CMA beacon in sight from 4000 feet and 15 miles south of the field so I said I was cancelling IFR. I did cancel IFR and changed to the CMA advisory frequency while I proceeded with the visual descent. About 5 miles out it became obvious there was mixed weather at CMA. West of the field as broken at about 700; over the airport was scattered at 700; and east of the field was clear. In a visual approach to runway 26; I lost sight of the runway more than once but had a solid visual on the runway from 600 feet down. I landed without event. I feel this was marginal VFR at best and more likely IMC. I also felt this was a condition forced on me by ATC who basically seemed to not want to give me the RNAV-Y approach.

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	859588
Time
Date	200911
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	CMA.Airport
State Reference	CA
Environment
Flight Conditions	Marginal
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Small Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Flying Single Pilot
Qualification	Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 47 Flight Crew Total 3300 Flight Crew Type 1450
Events
Anomaly	Airspace Violation All Types

IFR corporate aircraft inbound to cma was denied request for RNAV approach from ZLA; reportedly because the procedure routing interfered with lax traffic.