|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : lbo.airport|
|Altitude||msl single value : 4000|
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : sgf.tracon|
|Operator||general aviation : personal|
|Make Model Name||SR22|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 91|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
|Route In Use||approach : visual|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
pilot : private
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 15|
flight time total : 675
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||controller : approach|
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : unable|
|ATC Facility||communication equipment : sgf.tracon|
Approaches into lbo were being handled by kc center until the last several months. Communications were not a problem with center. Since sgf approach has taken over for the lbo area; communications have been difficult while shooting apches into lebanon. This is especially true when coming to the lbo area from the east. Typically (as well as the above date); when approaching from the east; I have been unable to make radio contact with sgf until I am at or west of the field at lbo. This is true even if coming in at 4000 to 6000 ft MSL. This makes it much more cumbersome to execute an approach into the airport. When a full approach is necessary; this results in starting the approach high and having to cross the field prior to getting vectors/clearance for the approach. Without going into great detail; I am sure you are aware of the problems that poor communication can cause while flying in IMC. I would just like to make the powers that be aware that we now have a problem at lbo. It is great to deal with sgf when I am able to communicate with them -- I do not have a problem with them being responsible for our airport. I just have a problem with not being able to communicate with them. However; center has been great to deal with in the past as well; and typically I am able to talk to them well below 1000 ft AGL. Actually; I frequently switch back to center (after trying to contact sgf); while still airborne to cancel IFR prior to landing. It appears that sgf needs better communication ability in our area to serve us as well as center has been able to in the past. Another concern would be radar coverage. I hope that there has not been a similar case of decreased coverage with radar as well as communication; for that would appear to be a considerable safety concern. The experienced communication difficulties are more of an inconvenience than anything.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SR22 PLT EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING SGF TRACON COMMUNICATION COVERAGE FOR IFR OPS AT LBO ARPT.
Narrative: APPROACHES INTO LBO WERE BEING HANDLED BY KC CTR UNTIL THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. COMMUNICATIONS WERE NOT A PROBLEM WITH CTR. SINCE SGF APCH HAS TAKEN OVER FOR THE LBO AREA; COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT WHILE SHOOTING APCHES INTO LEBANON. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN COMING TO THE LBO AREA FROM THE E. TYPICALLY (AS WELL AS THE ABOVE DATE); WHEN APCHING FROM THE E; I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO MAKE RADIO CONTACT WITH SGF UNTIL I AM AT OR W OF THE FIELD AT LBO. THIS IS TRUE EVEN IF COMING IN AT 4000 TO 6000 FT MSL. THIS MAKES IT MUCH MORE CUMBERSOME TO EXECUTE AN APCH INTO THE ARPT. WHEN A FULL APCH IS NECESSARY; THIS RESULTS IN STARTING THE APCH HIGH AND HAVING TO CROSS THE FIELD PRIOR TO GETTING VECTORS/CLRNC FOR THE APCH. WITHOUT GOING INTO GREAT DETAIL; I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PROBS THAT POOR COMMUNICATION CAN CAUSE WHILE FLYING IN IMC. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE THE POWERS THAT BE AWARE THAT WE NOW HAVE A PROBLEM AT LBO. IT IS GREAT TO DEAL WITH SGF WHEN I AM ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM -- I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ARPT. I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM. HOWEVER; CTR HAS BEEN GREAT TO DEAL WITH IN THE PAST AS WELL; AND TYPICALLY I AM ABLE TO TALK TO THEM WELL BELOW 1000 FT AGL. ACTUALLY; I FREQUENTLY SWITCH BACK TO CTR (AFTER TRYING TO CONTACT SGF); WHILE STILL AIRBORNE TO CANCEL IFR PRIOR TO LNDG. IT APPEARS THAT SGF NEEDS BETTER COMMUNICATION ABILITY IN OUR AREA TO SERVE US AS WELL AS CTR HAS BEEN ABLE TO IN THE PAST. ANOTHER CONCERN WOULD BE RADAR COVERAGE. I HOPE THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SIMILAR CASE OF DECREASED COVERAGE WITH RADAR AS WELL AS COMMUNICATION; FOR THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE A CONSIDERABLE SAFETY CONCERN. THE EXPERIENCED COM DIFFICULTIES ARE MORE OF AN INCONVENIENCE THAN ANYTHING.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.