BE36 pilot reports requesting a diversion to bhm due to weather approaching his intended destination...

Narrative:

En route to crx; my satellite downlink showed heavy rain heading towards crx. I advised ATC (I believe I was talking to atlanta center at the time) and asked to divert to bhm so I could evaluate my options. The controller promptly cleared me to bhm. As I neared bhm; I was handed off to birmingham approach. I advised approach I was at 6;000 MSL and had information zulu. Approach responded with the local altimeter setting; but said nothing about which approach to expect. About 10 miles southeast; I told approach I had the field in sight. At that point; the controller apparently realized I was planning to land at bhm; since he said that he had not received any word that I was diverting and thought I was still heading to crx. When I confirmed my intention to divert; he vectored me for a visual approach and I made an uneventful landing. In retrospect; I should have realized the potential for a disconnect on initial contact when birmingham approach said nothing about what approach I should expect. Lesson learned; don't assume flight plan changes are always entered into the system or that every controller is made aware of such changes.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE36 pilot reports requesting a diversion to BHM due to weather approaching his intended destination; which is granted. Upon switching to BHM Approach; it becomes increasingly apparent that the Controller is not aware of the planned diversion until the field is reported in sight.

Narrative: En route to CRX; my satellite downlink showed heavy rain heading towards CRX. I advised ATC (I believe I was talking to Atlanta Center at the time) and asked to divert to BHM so I could evaluate my options. The Controller promptly cleared me to BHM. As I neared BHM; I was handed off to Birmingham Approach. I advised Approach I was at 6;000 MSL and had information Zulu. Approach responded with the local altimeter setting; but said nothing about which approach to expect. About 10 miles southeast; I told Approach I had the field in sight. At that point; the Controller apparently realized I was planning to land at BHM; since he said that he had not received any word that I was diverting and thought I was still heading to CRX. When I confirmed my intention to divert; he vectored me for a visual approach and I made an uneventful landing. In retrospect; I should have realized the potential for a disconnect on initial contact when Birmingham Approach said nothing about what approach I should expect. Lesson learned; don't assume flight plan changes are always entered into the system or that every controller is made aware of such changes.

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	977431
Time
Date	201110
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	BHM.Airport
State Reference	AL
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Bonanza 36
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Direct
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Single Pilot Captain Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Instrument
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 65.6 Flight Crew Total 1992.8 Flight Crew Type 1307.3
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

BE36 pilot reports requesting a diversion to bhm due to weather approaching his intended destination; which is granted. Upon switching to bhm approach; it becomes increasingly apparent that the controller is not aware of the planned diversion until the field is reported in sight.