Narrative:

VFR flight no flight plan to lft. Reasonable VFR conditions until arriving northwest louisiana when VFR became marginal. Lowering ceilings and a clearer patch above led to a climb to approximately 5500 ft approximately 50 miles from destination. There did not appear to be clear VFR in any direction. An IFR clearance to lft was requested and received from lafayette approach. Vectors to ILS 22L were given and there were no difficulties to that point. [I was] vectored to ILS 22L but inadvertently canceled approach. When autopilot did not track localizer as expected; tried to reset approach unsuccessfully. Workload/stress increased remarkably at this point and missed approach ensued. Proceeded with vectors by approach control to try ILS 22L again. Problem repeated with another missed approach. Radar surveillance approach attempted however; I did not begin descent soon enough or descend quickly enough to get below ceilings and see runway environment. At this point controller asked if we wanted to go elsewhere and I replied we did not and had approximately 30 minutes of fuel remaining. Requested and received RNAV (GPS) 22L. Last approach successfully concluded. The chain began with a planned long flight with IFR clearance as a back-up plan for a forecast marginal VFR conditions at destination. Contributing factors to the difficulty were weather related in that 1) forecast VFR (though marginal) conditions became IFR shortly before arrival and 2) flight was longer than anticipated due to deviation of route to the west caused by large area of thunderstorms over central arkansas. Asked for and received a less demanding approach (in terms of the aircraft systems) and successfully concluded flight. Human performance considerations: a better way to have conducted this flight from the start would have been with an IFR flight plan. Though legally IFR current by way of the minimum number of approaches/procedures required in the previous 6 months this was not sufficient (in retrospect) for this pilot who had never experienced solid IFR conditions solo. Previous solid IMC flights (few in number) occurred with either another pilot or instructor in the right seat. Essentially this was this pilot's first solo IMC experience. I was not prepared for how overloaded I would feel when the navigator/autopilot did not behave as I thought they should in IMC conditions. After nearly 4.5 hours in the aircraft fatigue was almost certainly a factor. Corrective actions: in the short run; as noted above; asking for the approach I felt most comfortable with helped. In the longer term I plan to train to a higher standard for IFR operations so that if something goes awry I am not overwhelmed. All IFR practice approaches will include ATC communications because that is an important part of the workload. Until obtaining more training I will adjust my personal minimums accordingly.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SR22 pilot reports three missed approaches while attempting to land at LFT in IMC. Reporter believes lack of solo IMC experience and fatigue to be contributory factors to the missed approaches.

Narrative: VFR flight no flight plan to LFT. Reasonable VFR conditions until arriving northwest Louisiana when VFR became marginal. Lowering ceilings and a clearer patch above led to a climb to approximately 5500 FT approximately 50 miles from destination. There did not appear to be clear VFR in any direction. An IFR clearance to LFT was requested and received from Lafayette Approach. Vectors to ILS 22L were given and there were no difficulties to that point. [I was] vectored to ILS 22L but inadvertently canceled approach. When autopilot did not track localizer as expected; tried to reset approach unsuccessfully. Workload/stress increased remarkably at this point and missed approach ensued. Proceeded with vectors by Approach Control to try ILS 22L again. Problem repeated with another missed approach. Radar surveillance approach attempted however; I did not begin descent soon enough or descend quickly enough to get below ceilings and see runway environment. At this point Controller asked if we wanted to go elsewhere and I replied we did not and had approximately 30 minutes of fuel remaining. Requested and received RNAV (GPS) 22L. Last approach successfully concluded. The chain began with a planned long flight with IFR clearance as a back-up plan for a forecast marginal VFR conditions at destination. Contributing factors to the difficulty were weather related in that 1) forecast VFR (though marginal) conditions became IFR shortly before arrival and 2) flight was longer than anticipated due to deviation of route to the west caused by large area of thunderstorms over central Arkansas. Asked for and received a less demanding approach (in terms of the aircraft systems) and successfully concluded flight. Human Performance considerations: A better way to have conducted this flight from the start would have been with an IFR flight plan. Though legally IFR current by way of the minimum number of approaches/procedures required in the previous 6 months this was not sufficient (in retrospect) for this pilot who had never experienced solid IFR conditions solo. Previous solid IMC flights (few in number) occurred with either another pilot or instructor in the right seat. Essentially this was this pilot's first solo IMC experience. I was not prepared for how overloaded I would feel when the navigator/autopilot did not behave as I thought they should in IMC conditions. After nearly 4.5 hours in the aircraft fatigue was almost certainly a factor. Corrective actions: in the short run; as noted above; asking for the approach I felt most comfortable with helped. In the longer term I plan to train to a higher standard for IFR operations so that if something goes awry I am not overwhelmed. All IFR practice approaches will include ATC communications because that is an important part of the workload. Until obtaining more training I will adjust my personal minimums accordingly.

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.