Narrative:

I needed one instrument approach to extend my IFR currency beyond the current month. The current ceiling at lzu was 2;000 ft AGL and two miles; just barely IMC. The forecast of 10;000 ft clearly was garbage. This will be easy; almost a joke; I thought. I planned to do three localizer approaches; a hold and a landing. I had lots of fuel; which turned out to be a real good thing. I copied a 900 ft AGL ceiling with localizer minimum of 462. Still no big deal. Lots of other nearby fields with localizers; which typically are good down to 400 ft. I also didn't look at the localizer plates for nearby fields; especially since I had a 900 ft ceiling. I've never diverted in to atl-metro area before in my 16 years here -- I never needed to. My glideslope was known to be unusable and that made the difference later. I also hadn't realized that many of the localizer minimums had been raised over the years due to uncontrolled building during atl-metro's boom years. Preflight planning was clearly lacking! New rule will be to look at plates for possible alternates now; not five years ago! The controller said that rome; GA.; would make a good alternate with; I think; a 1;000 ft AGL ceiling. I filed rome as my alternate. I had forgotten that rome is surrounded with mountains and I have a rule against doing approaches in the mountains because it's too easy to blow it and kill myself. The one time I violated this rule about six years ago I almost did kill myself. I should have filed chattanooga (100 NM away) as an alternate; checked weather and brought the plate for it. I launched into a supposed 900 ft ceiling. (Atl center later claimed it was below minimums at the time; it may have been but nobody bothered to tell me! Note: that I got ATIS just before engine start.) the preferred approach was a VOR/DME but I don't have DME equipment so I requested and got the localizer to opposite direction runway. Note: no other traffic at lzu. For some reason ATC released me to do the approach at 4;000 ft rather than the 3;000 ft minimum allowed on the plate (and usually given).this may have been due to other traffic but my repeated requests for lower were ignored. Trying to lose 2;500 ft (4;000 to 1;500) while maintaining close airspeed for this timed approach; was difficult. I hit the missed 200 ft high and saw clouds below. Not good. I contemplated landing on the next approach before the ceiling went lower. Again (#2) ATC kept me at 4;000 ft despite requests for lower; 200 ft high at missed and no choice but to miss. For the #3 approach; I really wanted to land but ATC kept me at 3;500 ft despite requests. I flew a good approach down exactly to minimums but clouds below. I'm not getting into lzu as I struck out three times in a row. I decided to go elsewhere while I still had good fuel reserves (about 2.25 hours). This was the first of only three good decisions I made. This was very sad for a high time instrument pilot who had done only one approach in actual in a year. I asked for the ceilings at pdk; ryy; fty; wdr; and ahn; knowing they all had localizer approach. I had the brains to check my charts. Each had a minimum of between 500 and 600 ft AGL and none had a ceiling above 500 ft (rather than the anticipated 400 ft)! I decided to divert to rome (rmg)!' big big; really big mistake that probably was almost my last mistake. I forgot about the mountains and never even had looked at the plates. They offered me the VOR or ILS. Of course I chose the ILS (localizer) because they give a lower minimum. Then I looked at it. To my shock they refuse to give vectors 'poor radar coverage;' which should have clued me in that poor coverage; was due to mountains. I was south southeast of the rmg VOR and was cleared direct to it and then to do the full approach. While ATC did use the word 'full;' the presence of 'IAF' at the intersection with the final approach segment caused me to know not know then (or even now) if I should have gone around the hold once before the final approach segment. ATC kept me much higher than the plate suggested -- though in this case it may have saved my life due to my botched approach. I reasoned that if I could turn around to do the hold I could just as well continue to a hopeful landing -- and I was running out of fuel. Yeah; about that DME (that you recall I didn't have). I decided I was in an emergency situation at this point (though I didn't transmit same). I decided to use my GPS to identify the 1;200 ft letdown point adjusting for the difference between DME and GPS distances. Yes! I should have refused this approach and gone to chattanooga and asked for a textual description of the approach or at least looked at and done the VOR (which turns out to have /DME required). The VOR would have been easy with minimums below the current ceiling. You probably guessed it. I couldn't turn from R-284 to final approach fast enough to prevent full scale on the localizer needle. I turned northeast and tried to recapture the needle. After about 30 seconds and still full scale on the localizer needle I got some sense and did an early missed with a steep climb before I hit something. I plan to repeat this approach in VFR to see how close I came to death. I'm not the least bit proud or satisfied with my performance here. I'm still considering walking away from instrument flight. I am gonna find another instrument instructor who isn't afraid to go up in actual to get my once-very good instrument ability back. Some of the problem is that I'm working too many hours in this terrible economy to make enough to keep my plane and break even; let alone save for my old age. Almost as scary as this approach. On the missed I asked about chattanooga ceilings and visibility and was told light IFR to MVFR. Off I went (after verifying good fuel situation -- that ATC asked about as well). No plate but I could get the textual description or vector me below the clouds and with a vectored approach how hard could vectored a localizer be? This should have been my very first move when lzu caved in! ATC cleared me for a localizer but then gave me a vector whose heading seemed wrong. I told them I was turning to 040 to intercept but they told me to maintain the vector heading. I was confused! (I know all of this day's ATC quirkiness was not just me.) ATC then said; 'if you don't receive a transmission for 1.25 minutes execute the missed.' I was confused. ATC later (on the phone; what fun) told me that they said that they were changing me to an ASR. I never heard that on the radio. I was in poor communication coverage and having some difficulty hearing them. They were at fault in not repeating when I failed to read back mention of switching to an ASR. In retrospect I should have asked about the; 'if you don't receive a transmission' but I had never experienced that in 20 years of instrument flying (unless I requested a gca at a military field). When I broke out and saw the approach lighting at cha; I was downright giddy on the radio. Ground asked me to phone approach. I do have respect for the approach controller who said that we will talk pilot-to-pilot and no further action will be taken. Atl was concerned about my 'taking off in below minimums.' I explained what I copied (400 ft above minimums) but I admitted that when I wasn't able to land the first time I should have started worrying then about how to get down. He said that my headings in response to vectors always was about 30 degrees off and suggested that my dg may have precessed. (It would have been nice if they told me in the air so I could adjust.) I had periodically checked it and it was fine. I suspect that when I removed my literally smoking #1 communication a few weeks before and moved #2 to #1 position the stray fields may have affected the compass. I will swing it as soon as possible. (Yeah I should have paid a radio shop to move my radios -- no wiring required -- instead of myself; an electrical engineer doing it. Yeah; right.) what I learned: 1) don't ever do approaches in the mountains except in dire emergency and don't use them as field alternates! Have a good alternate. For my location; I should keep plates and forecast for cha and probably south carolina as well. 2) probably should start following the long discarded advice of knowing where the nearest VFR is (or at least knowing there isn't within flying range). 3) study approach plates for airports nearby airports (where every pilot informally keeps a list of alternates) before 'low ceiling' flight! 4) I like to practice in low IFR but I should have a really good plan in case the ceiling caves in. I did have lots of fuel and that was part of a good plan. I am smart enough to have extra fuel if weather is 'iffy.' 5) if; while doing approaches; the local ceiling is close to or below minimums; it's time to immediately execute an escape route. Also; I'll be more realistic that when temp/dew point is close it could cave at any time. 6) when diverting; look at multiple plates. Don't do a screwy approach like the rmg ILS/DME 1.you might want to contact the FAA chart makers and suggest they revise it as it's not really flyable; in my opinion; and not even clear whether to fly outbound first from the VOR!! Yeah I was dumb; but others will be too; especially when running out of perceived options.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A general aviation pilot completed a practice instrument flight that he was admittedly unprepared for that resulted in several missed approaches and a diversion with the assistance of ATC because of deteriorating weather.

Narrative: I needed one instrument approach to extend my IFR currency beyond the current month. The current ceiling at LZU was 2;000 FT AGL and two miles; just barely IMC. The forecast of 10;000 FT clearly was garbage. This will be easy; almost a joke; I thought. I planned to do three LOC approaches; a hold and a landing. I had lots of fuel; which turned out to be a real good thing. I copied a 900 FT AGL ceiling with LOC minimum of 462. Still no big deal. Lots of other nearby fields with localizers; which typically are good down to 400 FT. I also didn't look at the LOC plates for nearby fields; especially since I had a 900 FT ceiling. I've never diverted in to ATL-Metro area before in my 16 years here -- I never needed to. My glideslope was known to be unusable and that made the difference later. I also hadn't realized that many of the LOC minimums had been raised over the years due to uncontrolled building during ATL-Metro's boom years. PREFLIGHT PLANNING WAS CLEARLY LACKING! New rule will be to look at plates for possible alternates now; not five years ago! The Controller said that Rome; GA.; would make a good alternate with; I think; a 1;000 FT AGL ceiling. I filed Rome as my alternate. I had forgotten that Rome is surrounded with mountains and I have a rule against doing approaches in the mountains because it's too easy to blow it and kill myself. The one time I violated this rule about six years ago I almost did kill myself. I SHOULD have filed Chattanooga (100 NM away) as an alternate; checked weather and brought the plate for it. I launched into a supposed 900 FT ceiling. (ATL Center later claimed it was below minimums at the time; it may have been but nobody bothered to tell me! Note: that I got ATIS just before engine start.) The preferred approach was a VOR/DME but I don't have DME equipment so I requested and got the LOC to opposite direction runway. Note: no other traffic at LZU. For some reason ATC released me to do the approach at 4;000 FT rather than the 3;000 FT minimum allowed on the plate (and usually given).This may have been due to other traffic but my repeated requests for lower were ignored. Trying to lose 2;500 FT (4;000 to 1;500) while maintaining close airspeed for this timed approach; was difficult. I hit the missed 200 FT high and saw clouds below. NOT GOOD. I contemplated landing on the next approach before the ceiling went lower. Again (#2) ATC kept me at 4;000 FT despite requests for lower; 200 FT high at missed and no choice but to miss. For the #3 approach; I really wanted to land but ATC kept me at 3;500 FT despite requests. I flew a good approach down exactly to minimums but clouds below. I'm not getting into LZU as I struck out three times in a row. I decided to go elsewhere while I still had good fuel reserves (about 2.25 hours). This was the first of only three good decisions I made. This was very sad for a high time instrument pilot who had done only one approach in actual in a year. I asked for the ceilings at PDK; RYY; FTY; WDR; and AHN; knowing they all had LOC approach. I had the brains to check my charts. Each had a minimum of between 500 and 600 FT AGL and none had a ceiling above 500 FT (rather than the anticipated 400 FT)! I decided to divert to Rome (RMG)!' Big BIG; REALLY BIG MISTAKE THAT PROBABLY WAS ALMOST MY LAST MISTAKE. I forgot about the mountains and never even had looked at the plates. They offered me the VOR or ILS. Of course I chose the ILS (LOC) because they give a lower minimum. Then I looked at it. To my shock they refuse to give vectors 'poor radar coverage;' which should have clued me in that poor coverage; was due to mountains. I was south southeast of the RMG VOR and was cleared direct to it and then to do the full approach. While ATC did use the word 'full;' the presence of 'IAF' at the intersection with the final approach segment caused me to know not know then (or even now) if I should have gone around the hold once before the final approach segment. ATC kept me much higher than the plate suggested -- though in this case it may have saved my life due to my botched approach. I reasoned that if I could turn around to do the hold I could just as well continue to a hopeful landing -- and I was running out of fuel. Yeah; about that DME (that you recall I didn't have). I decided I was in an emergency situation at this point (though I didn't transmit same). I decided to use my GPS to identify the 1;200 FT letdown point adjusting for the difference between DME and GPS distances. YES! I should have refused this approach and gone to Chattanooga and asked for a textual description of the approach or at least looked at and done the VOR (which turns out to have /DME required). The VOR would have been easy with minimums below the current ceiling. You probably guessed it. I couldn't turn from R-284 to final approach fast enough to prevent full scale on the LOC needle. I turned NE and tried to recapture the needle. After about 30 seconds and still full scale on the LOC needle I got some sense and did an early missed with a steep climb before I hit something. I plan to repeat this approach in VFR to see how close I came to death. I'm not the least bit proud or satisfied with my performance here. I'm still considering walking away from instrument flight. I AM gonna find another instrument instructor who isn't afraid to go up in actual to get my once-very good instrument ability back. Some of the problem is that I'm working too many hours in this terrible economy to make enough to keep my plane and break even; let alone save for my old age. Almost as scary as this approach. On the missed I asked about Chattanooga ceilings and visibility and was told light IFR to MVFR. Off I went (after verifying good fuel situation -- that ATC asked about as well). No plate but I could get the textual description or vector me below the clouds and with a vectored approach how hard could vectored a LOC be? THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MY VERY FIRST MOVE WHEN LZU CAVED IN! ATC cleared me for a LOC but then gave me a vector whose heading seemed wrong. I told them I was turning to 040 to intercept but they told me to maintain the vector heading. I WAS CONFUSED! (I KNOW all of this day's ATC quirkiness was not just me.) ATC then said; 'If you don't receive a transmission for 1.25 minutes execute the missed.' I was confused. ATC later (on the phone; what fun) told me that they said that they were changing me to an ASR. I NEVER heard that on the radio. I was in poor COMMUNICATION coverage and having some difficulty hearing them. They were at fault in not repeating when I failed to read back mention of switching to an ASR. In retrospect I should have asked about the; 'if you don't receive a transmission' but I had never experienced that in 20 years of instrument flying (unless I requested a GCA at a military field). When I broke out and saw the approach lighting at CHA; I was downright giddy on the radio. Ground asked me to phone Approach. I do have respect for the Approach Controller who said that we will talk pilot-to-pilot and no further action will be taken. ATL was concerned about my 'taking off in below minimums.' I explained what I copied (400 FT above minimums) but I admitted that when I wasn't able to land the first time I should have started worrying then about how to get down. He said that my headings in response to vectors always was about 30 degrees off and suggested that my DG may have precessed. (It would have been nice if they told me in the air so I could adjust.) I had periodically checked it and it was fine. I suspect that when I removed my literally smoking #1 COM a few weeks before and moved #2 to #1 position the stray fields may have affected the compass. I will swing it ASAP. (Yeah I should have paid a radio shop to move my radios -- no wiring required -- instead of myself; an electrical engineer doing it. Yeah; right.) What I learned: 1) Don't ever do approaches in the mountains except in DIRE emergency and don't use them as field alternates! Have a GOOD alternate. For my location; I should keep plates and forecast for CHA and probably South Carolina as well. 2) Probably should start following the long discarded advice of knowing where the nearest VFR is (or at least knowing there isn't within flying range). 3) Study approach plates for airports nearby airports (where every pilot informally keeps a list of alternates) before 'low ceiling' flight! 4) I like to practice in low IFR but I should have a really good plan in case the ceiling caves in. I did have lots of fuel and that was part of a good plan. I AM smart enough to have extra fuel if weather is 'iffy.' 5) If; while doing approaches; the local ceiling is close to or below minimums; it's time to immediately execute an escape route. Also; I'll be more realistic that when temp/dew point is close it could cave at any time. 6) When diverting; look at multiple plates. Don't do a screwy approach like the RMG ILS/DME 1.You might want to contact the FAA chart makers and suggest they revise it as it's not really flyable; in my opinion; and not even clear whether to fly outbound first from the VOR!! Yeah I was dumb; but others will be too; especially when running out of perceived options.

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.