Cessna 400
Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 50; Flight Crew Total 2200; Flight Crew Type 1
Confusion; Workload
ATC Issue All Types
General None Reported / Taken
Human Factors; Procedure
Returning to FUL with widespread VFR in 10mi haze and ATIS reporting ~3000 overcast.  We assumed prior to departure that there was an overcast layer that we would have to penetrate IFR; so filed IFR prior to departure.  Departed VFR heading southwest and then contacted SoCal approach to open IFR flight plan and requested RNAV GPS 24 approach (Fullerton was using runway 24).  Instead; we get:  'direct Paradise; depart on radial 270; intercept V394; V394 to Seal Beach'.  We then again requested radar vectors to the RNAV GPS 24 approach (the IAF was conveniently right in front of us) but were again given the original clearance.  Fortunately; we could see that the feared overcast layer was only very limited coverage; so we canceled IFR and dropped straight into Fullerton VFR.  In fairness; I should point out that Fullerton ATIS said they were using the VOR-A approach; and Seal Beach is the IAF for that approach.  Having said that...my comment follows: The approach that SoCal offered (and would not alter) is complicated to execute even if you're all geared up for it; and downright difficult if you want to program it into a modern aircraft.  Instead of loading an existing approach or STAR; it's a manual entry of at least three VORs and radials and a Victor airway (and by the way; Victor airways are very [seldom] in use in the rest of the US).  Incidentally; you have to know the 3-letter identifiers of the VORs; or look them up; and you have to know that V394 makes a dogleg turn at AHEIM (which incidentally makes it difficult to find and trace V394 on the map).  The clearance doesn't mention Pomona VOR which you have to figure out is ON the airway in the first place.  So once you've figured this all out; and are either going back to the stone age and tuning the VORs and radials; or have gone through probably a hundred keystrokes to program it into the Garmin; you *still* have to intercept a Victor airway *between* waypoints (and this must be for the convenience of SoCal; because it certainly is not convenient for the pilot) and then manually sequence to the V394 route segment.  All this is necessary because SoCal wants you to use the VOR-A approach; another outdated procedure; which is nuts because you have to first OVERFLY the destination; then turn back to it; execute the unaligned procedure WITH A TAILWIND and CIRCLE TO LAND rather than just load and execute the GPS approach that's aligned with the active runway.All this while flying the airplane and accepting a constant stream of frequency and altitude changes.The odds of successful execution of this clearance by single-pilot IFR; unless the pilot is very experienced with this area and this procedure; seem quite low.  The odds of screwing it up are excellent.I guess I don't understand SoCal's problems; but they certainly don't understand mine.  Was this a case of poor controlling; or is this SoCal's best offering?  Why shouldn't they plop an airplane right onto the runway-aligned GPS procedure that's right in front of it?  If there's a timing/sequencing issue; why wouldn't they give you a hold at the GPS approach's IAF; and then release as soon as a window opens?  If using a Victor airway is absolutely essential; why wouldn't they at least give you a normal entry point instead of departing some other VOR on a radial and intercepting at mid-segment?  Do they realize that the route they specified requires four course changes just to get to the IAF?
Columbia 400 pilot reported he received a clearance from SoCal Approach that would have been very challenging to correctly program and fly in his glass cockpit aircraft.