Narrative:

On IFR single pilot flight from roa to bwi in MVFR with light rain and haze en route with bwi 3 mi visibility in fog and haze. En route clearance had been changed twice, when now en route from mrb to bwi cleared for 'expedited' descent from 7000' to 3000' MSL. Bwi ATIS advised to expect ILS 10. Having set up that approach, ATC advised to expect ILS 15 right cleared to 2500' and 'intercept 15R localizer.' now having set up second approach, ATC shortly (2 mins) issued vectors for a left turn and advised, 'expect ILS 28.' while changing to a third approach, ATC advised, 'maintain 2500,' as I had descended to 2250'. ATC queried airspeed and I responded 160 indicated. ATC then issued vectors for a right turn, 'expect visibility 22 approach.' advised by ATC that airport was 3 1/2 mi at 12 O'clock, I reported negative contact. At 3 mi I reported airport in sight and was turned over to tower. Calling tower I could barely hear tower clear me to 'land runway 22, hold short runway 33, landing traffic.' (I had inadvertently switched audio panel from phones to speaker.) as I was high due to late visibility contact with airport and in view of landing restriction and audio problem, I elected to go around, corrected audio panel problem, and advised tower. I was first assigned runway heading, then right to 360 degrees, then left to 240 degrees which I questioned, then right to 040 degrees and 'keep field in sight.' I was cleared to land runway 22, then offered choice of 22 or runway 28. I accepted runway 28 and was cleared to 'land runway 28, hold short runway 33, landing traffic.' landed runway 28 west/O incident. Yes, that's how it happened, all in about 10 mins! Though I never lost orientation, my ability to handle the workload was stretched to the limit. I was advised that the changes resulted from 'operation changes.' conclusion: I should not have accepted third successive approach in limited visibility, single pilot environment. A reply of unable might have prevented overload and a safer approach to a busy airport other than a small altitude deviation, I handled the situation, but the envelope of safety was getting small. The final visibility approach while close to the airport, with intersecting traffic, in limited visibility should not have been issued or accepted!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA ARRIVING BWI, SIFR IN MARGINAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS, RECEIVES 5 RWY CHANGES IN QUICK SUCCESSION DURING WHICH MAKES A MINOR ALT DEVIATION.

Narrative: ON IFR SINGLE PLT FLT FROM ROA TO BWI IN MVFR WITH LIGHT RAIN AND HAZE ENRTE WITH BWI 3 MI VISIBILITY IN FOG AND HAZE. ENRTE CLRNC HAD BEEN CHANGED TWICE, WHEN NOW ENRTE FROM MRB TO BWI CLRED FOR 'EXPEDITED' DSCNT FROM 7000' TO 3000' MSL. BWI ATIS ADVISED TO EXPECT ILS 10. HAVING SET UP THAT APCH, ATC ADVISED TO EXPECT ILS 15 R CLRED TO 2500' AND 'INTERCEPT 15R LOC.' NOW HAVING SET UP SECOND APCH, ATC SHORTLY (2 MINS) ISSUED VECTORS FOR A LEFT TURN AND ADVISED, 'EXPECT ILS 28.' WHILE CHANGING TO A THIRD APCH, ATC ADVISED, 'MAINTAIN 2500,' AS I HAD DSNDED TO 2250'. ATC QUERIED AIRSPD AND I RESPONDED 160 INDICATED. ATC THEN ISSUED VECTORS FOR A RIGHT TURN, 'EXPECT VIS 22 APCH.' ADVISED BY ATC THAT ARPT WAS 3 1/2 MI AT 12 O'CLOCK, I RPTED NEGATIVE CONTACT. AT 3 MI I RPTED ARPT IN SIGHT AND WAS TURNED OVER TO TWR. CALLING TWR I COULD BARELY HEAR TWR CLR ME TO 'LAND RWY 22, HOLD SHORT RWY 33, LNDG TFC.' (I HAD INADVERTENTLY SWITCHED AUDIO PANEL FROM PHONES TO SPEAKER.) AS I WAS HIGH DUE TO LATE VIS CONTACT WITH ARPT AND IN VIEW OF LNDG RESTRICTION AND AUDIO PROB, I ELECTED TO GO AROUND, CORRECTED AUDIO PANEL PROB, AND ADVISED TWR. I WAS FIRST ASSIGNED RWY HDG, THEN RIGHT TO 360 DEGS, THEN LEFT TO 240 DEGS WHICH I QUESTIONED, THEN RIGHT TO 040 DEGS AND 'KEEP FIELD IN SIGHT.' I WAS CLRED TO LAND RWY 22, THEN OFFERED CHOICE OF 22 OR RWY 28. I ACCEPTED RWY 28 AND WAS CLRED TO 'LAND RWY 28, HOLD SHORT RWY 33, LNDG TFC.' LANDED RWY 28 W/O INCIDENT. YES, THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENED, ALL IN ABOUT 10 MINS! THOUGH I NEVER LOST ORIENTATION, MY ABILITY TO HANDLE THE WORKLOAD WAS STRETCHED TO THE LIMIT. I WAS ADVISED THAT THE CHANGES RESULTED FROM 'OPERATION CHANGES.' CONCLUSION: I SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THIRD SUCCESSIVE APCH IN LIMITED VISIBILITY, SINGLE PLT ENVIRONMENT. A REPLY OF UNABLE MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED OVERLOAD AND A SAFER APCH TO A BUSY ARPT OTHER THAN A SMALL ALT DEVIATION, I HANDLED THE SITUATION, BUT THE ENVELOPE OF SAFETY WAS GETTING SMALL. THE FINAL VIS APCH WHILE CLOSE TO THE ARPT, WITH INTERSECTING TFC, IN LIMITED VISIBILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED OR ACCEPTED!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.