Pct controller described an unsafe condition when fdk tower denied a pilot requested GPS05 approach ...

Narrative:

A bonanza 36 was holding at the EMI VORTAC waiting for another aircraft executing the ILS23 approach at fdk to cancel IFR. After the first aircraft cancelled IFR; he recommended that due to the ceiling and visibility that the BE36 consider trying the GPS to runway 05 instead. The BE36 concurred and was vectored for the GPS05. Fdk tower opened at 0700L advertising runway 23 as the active runway. Fdk tower was advised that the BE36 was already being vectored for the GPS05; the tower responded they were unable because the airport was below weather minimums for the GPS05. The BE36 called fdk in sight and cancelled IFR and proceeded VFR to the field. Fdk was reporting IFR conditions at the field and told the BE36 that they were unable to allow him to land at the field VFR. The BE36 picked up another IFR clearance and requested the GPS05 at fdk; as he could see the airport from the air and was unable to see the field from the other direction. Again; fdk denied mulrr sector authorization to conduct the approach. After nearly an hour; the BE36 had to divert from fdk and went VFR into kdmw. There is no reason that the active runway at fdk could not be changed from runway 23 to runway 05 as the wind was calm and there were no other operations being conducted at the airport. Fdk simply would not authorize the GPS05 approach because the airport was below weather minimums for the approach. However; controllers are not allowed to deny a pilot an approach request. As pilot in command; the pilot of the aircraft has all pertinent weather and approach information and ultimately the call to shoot a particular approach rests with the pilot. If he wants the approach; it is the controller(s) responsibility to let the pilot conduct the approach; that is why missed approach instructions exist and are published. Not to mention the fact that the pilot of the BE36 could see the field while on the final approach course for the GPS05 approach into fdk. It was the tower controller's unwillingness (and lack of understanding of rules regarding approaches) that directly led to the BE36 being delayed over an hour before finally having to divert to an alternate airport.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PCT Controller described an unsafe condition when FDK Tower denied a pilot requested GPS05 approach due to weather minimums; the pilot cancelling IFR after observing the airport.

Narrative: A Bonanza 36 was holding at the EMI VORTAC waiting for another aircraft executing the ILS23 approach at FDK to cancel IFR. After the first aircraft cancelled IFR; he recommended that due to the ceiling and visibility that the BE36 consider trying the GPS to Runway 05 instead. The BE36 concurred and was vectored for the GPS05. FDK Tower opened at 0700L advertising Runway 23 as the active runway. FDK Tower was advised that the BE36 was already being vectored for the GPS05; the Tower responded they were unable because the airport was below weather minimums for the GPS05. The BE36 called FDK in sight and cancelled IFR and proceeded VFR to the field. FDK was reporting IFR conditions at the field and told the BE36 that they were unable to allow him to land at the field VFR. The BE36 picked up another IFR clearance and requested the GPS05 at FDK; as he could see the airport from the air and was unable to see the field from the other direction. Again; FDK denied MULRR sector authorization to conduct the approach. After nearly an hour; the BE36 had to divert from FDK and went VFR into KDMW. There is no reason that the active runway at FDK could not be changed from Runway 23 to Runway 05 as the wind was calm and there were no other operations being conducted at the airport. FDK simply would not authorize the GPS05 approach because the airport was below weather minimums for the approach. However; controllers are not allowed to deny a pilot an approach request. As Pilot in Command; the pilot of the aircraft has all pertinent weather and approach information and ultimately the call to shoot a particular approach rests with the pilot. If he wants the approach; it is the controller(s) responsibility to let the pilot conduct the approach; that is why missed approach instructions exist and are published. Not to mention the fact that the pilot of the BE36 could see the field while on the final approach course for the GPS05 approach into FDK. It was the Tower Controller's unwillingness (and lack of understanding of rules regarding approaches) that directly led to the BE36 being delayed over an hour before finally having to divert to an alternate airport.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1103162
Time
Date	201307
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	PCT.TRACON
State Reference	VA
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Bonanza 36
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Other Instrument Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach Departure
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types

Pct controller described an unsafe condition when fdk tower denied a pilot requested GPS05 approach due to weather minimums; the pilot cancelling IFR after observing the airport.