SINGLE PLT OF C340 DIVERTS TO ALTERNATE ARPT FOR WHICH HE HAS NO IAP CHARTS. ZDV RADAR CTLR PROVIDES ASSISTANCE AND DATA FOR VOR RWY 29 APCH.

Narrative

ON AN IFR FLT FROM CID TO CYS WITH DEN AS AN ALTERNATE; OUR ACFT WAS BEING OPERATED IN IMC CONDITIONS. ENRTE WE WERE MONITORING THE CHEYENNE WX VIA A HAND-HELD PDA EQUIPPED WITH AN 'ANYWHERE MAP' XM WX SATELLITE WX CAPABILITY. APCHING CYS WE HEARD THE ZDV CTLR ADVISE AN ACFT IN FRONT OF US THAT OTHER ACFT ATTEMPTING TO LAND AT CYS HAD RECENTLY MISSED THE APCH WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DIVERTING TO ANOTHER LOCATION; SPECIFICALLY AKO. UPON HEARING THAT ANOTHER ACFT WAS DIVERTING TO AKO I MADE WHAT I NOW FEEL WAS A 'LESS THAN WELL THOUGHT OUT DECISION.' IN ANTICIPATION OF THE WX NOT GETTING ANY BETTER AT CYS WE REQUESTED ZDV TO DIVERT TO AKO INSTEAD OF HDG TO OUR FILED ALTERNATE AT DENVER. UNFORTUNATELY BEFORE REQUESTING; AND RECEIVING; A REVISED CLRNC INTO AKO WE DID NOT CHK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AKO APCH PLATE WAS AVAILABLE TO US IN THE ACFT. AFTER SEVERAL MINS OF SEARCHING WE REALIZED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE AKO APCH PLATES ON BOARD. WE THEN CONTACTED FSS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET A VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF AN APPROPRIATE AKO APCH BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT TO CLUTTER AN ALREADY CONGESTED CTR FREQ. UNFORTUNATELY; THE FSS BRIEFER RESPONDED WITH; 'I DON'T HAVE THOSE AND EVEN IF I DID I'M NOT A PLT.' AT THAT POINT WE ASKED THE FSS BRIEFER TO SUGGEST ANY FIELD WITHIN 100 MI THAT WAS RPTING VFR CONDITIONS. WHILE WAITING FOR A REPLY FROM THE FSS BRIEFER THE OBVIOUSLY BUSY CTR CTLR INFORMED US TO ANTICIPATE HOLDING AT THE AKO VOR WHILE WE WAITED FOR THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US TO COMPLETE ITS APCH INTO AKO. RATHER THAN WAIT TO HEAR BACK FROM FSS REGARDING A VFR ALTERNATE WE SOMEWHAT RELUCTANTLY INFORMED CTR THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE AKO PLATES. WITHOUT MISSING A BEAT; OR GIVING US ANY WELL DESERVED GRIEF; THE CTR CTLR ASKED US WHICH APCH INTO AKO WE WANTED. FROM THE XM WX WE KNEW THAT THE WINDS FAVORED RWY 11 AND WE REQUESTED AN APCH FOR THAT RWY. VERY SOON AFTERWARDS THE CTLR INFORMED US THAT THE ONLY APCH INTO RWY 11 AT AKO WAS AN RNAV APCH BUT THAT THERE WAS A VOR APCH INTO RWY 29. WE RESPONDED THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE VOR RWY 29 APCH AND WITHOUT MISSING A BEAT THE CTLR BEGAN PROVIDING US WITH A VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF THE VOR RWY 29 APCH INTO AKO. I COPIED THE APCH DESCRIPTION AND EVEN ANSWERED IN THE 'NEGATIVE' WHEN THE CTLR ASKED IF I HAD ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO. YET SOMEHOW; ONCE WE WERE CLRED FOR THE AKO APCH I STILL MANAGED TO MISINTERPRET OUR INSTRUCTIONS AND MADE AN INITIAL TURN AWAY FROM THE ARPT VERSUS TOWARDS IT. IN OTHER WORDS; I TURNED OUTBOUND ON THE 110 DEG RADIAL (HDG 110 DEGS) VERSUS INBOUND ON THE 110 DEG RADIAL HDG 290 DEGS. ONCE I REALIZED THAT THE DME WAS INCREASING AND THAT I HAD CONFIGURED THE HSI TO TRACK THE 110 DEG RADIAL OUTBOUND VERSUS THE 290 DEG RADIAL INBOUND I MADE WHAT I NOW FEEL WAS ANOTHER POOR JUDGEMENT CALL. WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE APCH; SWITCHED TO THE UNICOM FREQ; AND WERE VMC AT OUR LAST ASSIGNED 'CRUISE ALT' SO INSTEAD OF SWITCHING BACK TO CTR TO ANNOUNCE YET ANOTHER MISTAKE I OPTED TO EXECUTE A COURSE REVERSAL TO TRACK INBOUND ON THE 110 DEG RADIAL HDG 290 DEGS. ONCE I DID THAT; AND RECONFIGURED THE HSI; EVERYTHING FELL INTO PLACE AND WE COMPLETED AN UNEVENTFUL BUT NERVOUSLY FLOWN APCH INTO AKO. AFTER LNDG I WAS ABLE TO COMPARE THE CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS WITH THE ACTUAL VOR RWY 29 IAP. AT THAT TIME IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT EVEN THOUGH I HAD MANAGED TO ACCURATELY COPY HIS VERY CLRLY STATED INSTRUCTIONS I HAD NEVER LET GO OF THE IDEA OF LNDG ON RWY 11 (THE RWY THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY REQUESTED AN APCH FOR). HAD WE NOT BEEN VMC; BTWN LAYERS AND IN DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS AT THE TIME THAT I REALIZED THE ERROR IN MY NAV; OR HAD THE CTR CTLR BEEN ANY LESS CLR IN PROVIDING A VERY ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE APCH WAS TO BE FLOWN ONCE WE INTERCEPTED THE FINAL APCH COURSE INBOUND; I'D HATE TO THINK HOW THIS MIGHT HAVE WORKED OUT.