Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FAI.TRACON, AK
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D FAI
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAI
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There has been an inability of Approach Controllers to provide proper and safe vectors while sequencing traffic to the final approach course. While entering the terminal environment the controller did not advise that vectors to final would be given. ATC asked for an approach request; ILS or RNAV. Vectors for a downwind and base leg were given. The vectors were given for an offset 2 miles from the inbound final course. Airspeed was 150 knots and vectored altitude 3;000 feet abeam the Final Approach Fix (FAF). Traffic was assigned the Initial Approach Fix on the approach following 5 miles in trail. I was given an intercept vector of 050 degrees while heading 170 degrees and cleared to intercept final and maintain 3;000 feet. This vector was given while offset 2-3 miles from final. The intercept would have been more than 20 degrees and on the intermediate approach segment. First the turn would have been through the approach course by at least a mile. Second the crossing of the final course would have been less than 3 miles from the FAF during a time of low weather conditions at the airport. Third; the aircraft at the crossing of the final approach course would have an altitude precluding a stable descent to the FAF crossing altitude and to continue the descent via the LPV generated glideslope (i.e. intercept glideslope from drastically above). After turning towards a heading to initiate a missed approach towards the Missed Approach Point and out on a missed approach. Vectors and altitude assignments were inappropriate for continued missed approach procedure. Vectors were then given to another RNAV approach with again loss of the controller's awareness of previous assigned altitude (3;000 feet; an altitude never changed from the initial intercept vector and again assigned on the missed approach sequence.) Crossing restrictions to descend and cross at 3;700 feet; 700 feet above the last assigned altitude. I asked for pilot navigation on the approach and direct the correct IAF. This had been denied and vectors were again given that did not allow a smooth turn to intercept the next approach segment. I elected to refuse the vector and request pilot navigation. The approach was completed smoothly and in a stable manner to weather conditions 400 feet above minimums.It has been my experience that 4 out of 5 vectors to final at this airport are poor if not simply unsafe in need unusual turn rates. The aircraft following me also flew through the assigned approach course. It is also my understanding that this is a training facility with high turnover. There is a lack of confidence in the facilities capabilities. Unfortunately this is a widely held view amongst the pilot community and within management of the facility. I have had numerous traffic conflicts and like occurrences and it is with regret to write this report.




Synopsis: An aircraft was vectored and sequenced to a RNAV Approach. The first vector was to intercept an intermediate approach segment and above glideslope. This aircraft was again vectored to intercept the RNAV approach. The vectors were issued late and too close to the final approach fix. The intercept angle exceeded the prescribed angle for intercept of a RNAV Approach. The aircraft was told to descend to cross a fix at an altitude it was 700 feet below. The aircraft eventually proceeded via their own navigation to intercept and fly a stable approach. The reporter states that ATC service at this facility are routinely unsafe.