Narrative:

I was on an IFR flight plan to vrb at FL300. Descending from the hibac intersection (northeast of vero beach); I obtained the current vrb ATIS. It advised a 9;000 ft ceiling with scattered clouds at (I believe) 1;500 ft and visibility 10 miles. The active approach was to runway 11R with a circle to land runway 4. Landing and takeoffs were from runway 4 according to prevailing wind. On nexrad and my radar it was obvious the runway 11R approach would take me into heavy precipitation; while the entire runway 4 RNAV (GPS) approach would keep me to the west and clear of the weather. About 30 miles out; I requested the runway 4 approach with the reason why and was cleared direct to the runway 4 IAF; ffair; by miami [center]. Switching to another miami frequency; I was now cleared to mrino; the initial approach fix for runway 11R rnbav (GPS) approach; which would take me directly into the weather. I indicated my preference for the runway 4 GPS. Miami replied [that] there were five planes ahead of me and they were not sure they could accommodate my request. I asked what they would like me to do to obtain the clearance and I was given a left turn to 290 degrees - the long way around more than 270 degrees - I also slowed and was again cleared to mrino. At this point at about 5;000 ft; the shoreline was visible and then the airport. I requested a visual approach. I was now given a series of vectors which took me far to the west of the airport; actually well outside the IAF; hocki; for the RNAV (GPS) 11 approach and then across the extended centerline of that approach; then well to the south. All this was in increasing rain; but I was able to maintain ground contact and intermittently see the airport. Finally; well south of the airport; which I had now circled counterclockwise about 270 degrees; I was cleared for the visual. Luckily the airport again was visible and I landed. I was never asked about my flight conditions until after I landed when the local controller asked about the visibility to the south. I clearly advised miami [center] my wish to fly the approach to the active runaway and not circle to land; [as well as] my reason. However; my original clearance to the runway 4 RNAV (GPS) IAF was canceled. When miami continued to take me toward weather and the airport became visible; I asked for a visual only to be taken on vectors almost completely around the airport; through the exact area I asked to avoid. I was then cleared for the visual in marginal VMC conditions and not the good VMC at the time and place I initially requested the visual approach. Miami should have granted my request for the runway 4 approach even if they had to hold me. When I requested a visual; they should not have vectored me into the weather I was trying to avoid.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TBM7 pilot arriving VRB learns from ATIS that Runway 11R approach is in use with a circle to land Runway 4. NEXRAD and on-board radar show weather on the 11R approach and the reporter requests the Runway 4 GPS approach. Other traffic arriving VRB results in delaying vectors and flight through the weather the reporter wished to avoid.

Narrative: I was on an IFR flight plan to VRB at FL300. Descending from the HIBAC intersection (northeast of Vero Beach); I obtained the current VRB ATIS. It advised a 9;000 FT ceiling with scattered clouds at (I believe) 1;500 FT and visibility 10 miles. The active approach was to Runway 11R with a circle to land Runway 4. Landing and takeoffs were from Runway 4 according to prevailing wind. On NEXRAD and my radar it was obvious the Runway 11R approach would take me into heavy precipitation; while the entire Runway 4 RNAV (GPS) approach would keep me to the west and clear of the weather. About 30 miles out; I requested the Runway 4 approach with the reason why and was cleared direct to the Runway 4 IAF; FFAIR; by Miami [Center]. Switching to another Miami frequency; I was now cleared to MRINO; the initial approach fix for Runway 11R RNBAV (GPS) approach; which would take me directly into the weather. I indicated my preference for the Runway 4 GPS. Miami replied [that] there were five planes ahead of me and they were not sure they could accommodate my request. I asked what they would like me to do to obtain the clearance and I was given a left turn to 290 degrees - the long way around more than 270 degrees - I also slowed and was again cleared to MRINO. At this point at about 5;000 FT; the shoreline was visible and then the airport. I requested a visual approach. I was now given a series of vectors which took me far to the west of the airport; actually well outside the IAF; HOCKI; for the RNAV (GPS) 11 approach and then across the extended centerline of that approach; then well to the south. All this was in increasing rain; but I was able to maintain ground contact and intermittently see the airport. Finally; well south of the airport; which I had now circled counterclockwise about 270 degrees; I was cleared for the visual. Luckily the airport again was visible and I landed. I was never asked about my flight conditions until after I landed when the Local Controller asked about the visibility to the south. I clearly advised Miami [Center] my wish to fly the approach to the active runaway and not circle to land; [as well as] my reason. However; my original clearance to the Runway 4 RNAV (GPS) IAF was canceled. When Miami continued to take me toward weather and the airport became visible; I asked for a visual only to be taken on vectors almost completely around the airport; through the exact area I asked to avoid. I was then cleared for the visual in marginal VMC conditions and not the good VMC at the time and place I initially requested the visual approach. Miami should have granted my request for the Runway 4 approach even if they had to hold me. When I requested a visual; they should not have vectored me into the weather I was trying to avoid.

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.