Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 206
Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Procedure; Human Factors
We were flying the DAMEN STAR for a 17R Arrival at SDF. Upon initial contact with Approach Control; I (Pilot Monitoring) checked in with current ATIS information; which advertised 10 miles visibility and a ceiling of 2;300 FT or so. I also requested the RNP Z 17R from the IF; COBLR; as the DAMEN Arrival brought us over that point. The ATIS information was new and barely 10 minutes old. We were told to expect the RNP Z and so we briefed up the approach as required. As we approached COBLR; I had the gut feel the Approach Controller had completely forgotten about us and reminded the Controller twice of our request. I also reminded the Controller that if it was unavailable; then no problem; we would prepare for the ILS 17R. The Controller said it wouldn't be a problem. The Controller then started vectoring us beyond COBLR; which was the only IF on the approach from our direction. We tried to query the Controller on the plan; but the Controller clearly had no time to answer our questions. We needed to know the plan as the Controller vectored us beyond the only IF on the approach from our area and it is prohibited to intercept an arrival course inside the IF or IAF. The Controller then vectored us onto base and then toward final and cleared us to intercept the RNAV final approach course and cleared us the approach. The entire time we were IMC and I told the Controller that this was unacceptable as it is a prohibited maneuver and we would need the ILS 17R instead. If the weather had been VMC; we would have of course flown a visual approach; but until we were VMC; we needed the ILS. The Controller then said; 'Okay. Cleared the ILS 17R then.' The Controller released us. The vectoring left us no time to brief the approach and kept us high the entire time. None of this would have mattered if ATIS was correct. We flew the LOC course and attempted to safely catch the glide slope from above. When we broke out of the weather at about 1;200 FT into rain and about three miles visibility; we elected to go around as we weren't in a stable position for the landing. On downwind while being vectored for an ILS 17R; I pulled up the ATIS and it had already cycled twice without approach saying anything. The new ATIS advertised a ceiling of 1;000 FT; and three miles visibility. I informed her that nobody corrected us on the new ATIS; even though ours was 22 minutes old when I first checked in and that we were too high when vectored onto final last time. The Controller clearly could have cared less about either comment. I wasn't looking for an apology or anything; but I could tell the Controller was in over his/her head as an Approach Controller. We were vectored onto the ILS 17R and flew the approach down and broke out about 800 FT above the ground. Landing was without incident. This particular Approach Controller needs to pay attention to the ATIS and; when someone checks on with an ATIS that says VFR while the field is wet with a low ceiling and limited visibility; then say something. The Controller needs to either say yes or no for an approach; and know the legalities of intercepting certain approaches. The Controller definitely doesn't understand RNP procedures outside/inside an IF or IAF and today that mistake/ignorance cost us time and hundreds of pounds of fuel. If the Controller doesn't know RNP procedures; then deny future aircraft the procedure until he/she learns how to handle them. Also; other controllers announce ATIS changes when there is a minor change to ATIS.
SDF Air Carrier arrival voiced concern regarding the ATC handling of their requested RNP Z 17R approach. The reporter noting the controller appeared to be unfamiliar with the RNP procedure and failed to update weather status via ATIS information.