
I had the NAV2 OBS set to 314, which identifies CIJHI, because I was at 2600, and the "at or above" altitude for CIJHI is 2400.
But then, as the controller gave me the clearance to approach, I glanced down at my plate to see which fix he had mentioned (error #1 - if I start counting now, anyway - because I jumbled all the instructions in my head and had to ask, "say again"

When I called the tower, I reported inbound "just outside" REEBO, but now in retrospect, I'm not sure if I was inside or outside REEBO. I twirled the OBS on NAV2 to 304, which identifies the REEBO fix, but...well, I misread the VOR needle. I thought I was outside of REEBO when in fact, by this time, I was definitely inside, and then I added to the error by climbing back up to 1800, the "at or above" altitude before reaching REEBO.
Then I caught the error reading the VOR needle, figured out I was inside REEBO, put in flaps, and made the steep-ish approach for landing that I had intended to avoid.
So my question is this: when being vectored for a LOC approach, or another approach where various fixes during the descent are radials of a VOR somewhere off to the side, which fix does it make the most sense to have dialed in to the OBS on NAV2? The final approach fix (REEBO, in this case)? I think I would have simplified my situation in this case to have had the FAF dialed in, instead of one of the more distant fixes. I suppose if I were vectored on to the approach path further out, I'd have more time to establish my position with knob twisting.
- Doug