Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FCM.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D FCM
ATC / advisory: Tower FCM
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were approaching FCM. Weather was reported for visuals Runway 28L. Other airports in the Minneapolis area were ranging as low as 500 overcast and 2 miles visibility due to rain. Strong winds from the west. We assumed it was clearing from the west; planned a visual approach to 28L with the GPS 28L already loaded as a back up. As we continued direct to the airport; we were cleared to 3;000; still on top of a lower broken layer. The frequency was busy and some guy kept asking questions. We asked for lower and were given 2;500; still unable to see forward; occasionally we had ground contact. When we were able to get in on the frequency we asked for the GPS 28L. She said unable and gave us a turn to 270 and offered the GPS 36. We have Universal's UNS1-B on board. Due to Runway 36 being short; none of the approaches to the runway were in our database. Let alone; the final approach course would have been only a couple miles away; we would never have had time to review the approach to get us down. We declined the approach and said we needed the GPS 28L. It was originally unavailable due to airspace with MSP airport. We received several more vectors to the south and then back towards the north. The IAF for GPS 28L is at FGT VOR; we were not near the VOR. As we continued northbound and got the approach loaded I figured we must be approaching west of HERBO. As we discussed the approach which we already had briefed; we determined that the Controller would have us intercept the 293 to ELOIT. The pilot flying had not reviewed the approach again and was not aware that if this was the case we should be at 2;100. We crossed the 293 bearing at 2;500; then was issued a 300 heading to join the final; 2;500 until established cleared for the approach. The dilemma is that we were past HERBO; we were north of the dog leg 293 bearing so the heading given would not intercept. So our best option at this point is to go direct to ELOIT at 2;500. Then dive for the runway. All safety of this approach is gone... OR we could decline the approach and get vectored back to FGT. Since the weather was not at minimums we did elect to continue to ELOIT and dive for the airport when we got it in sight. We landed without issue. However; this all would not have occurred if there wasn't pressure from MSP airport to keep people from flying that approach. If it is an issue; have them use the ILS [10R] and circle. In today's world of automation; it is difficult to fly a structured approach and not do what it is intended to do at jet speeds. Secondly; I feel that the Controller thought she vectored us to join the final course of 278 into the airport. We don't feel this can be done outside of ELOIT; there must be a reason for the dog leg.




Synopsis: CE-560 Captain experiences difficulties obtaining the approach of his choice into FCM due to conflicts with MSP airspace. Once cleared; the Controller does not appear to understand the nature of a GPS approach by issuing a vector that does not intercept an approach segment. With the weather above minimums; the crew makes their own adjustments and lands.