Narrative:

Aircraft X was instructed to proceed direct to wesen intersection and to descend to 4000 ft. Runway 10 was closed and the san juan tower radar ASR8 was also out for maintenance. This situation caused that all of the approaches were vectored into higher than standard MVA's due to the location of the ILS rwy 8 being located towards the mountainous terrain southwest of sju. 15 northwest of sju aircraft X requested lower but I informed that due to higher mvas I couldn't approve any lower. The pilot asked if I was planning to clear him to intercept but didn't specify any reasons or objections.approximately 7 miles northwest of patty NDB; I instructed aircraft X to fly heading of 110 and to maintain 4000 feet until established on the localizer and subsequently cleared aircraft X for the ILS rwy 8 approach. Because I was also training combined positions in R1/R5/R3/R7 I felt it was safer to clear the aircraft direct wesen ; this way while I get familiarized working the sector combined I could maintain more control of the traffic on final to sju. However; due to my lack of experience working these sectors under these conditions; positions combined ;outages and with higher mvas required; I failed to project that my intercept angle would place aircraft X too high near the outer marker and that the radar lag the mosaic sensor was giving me; I had an inaccurate (delayed)depiction of the aircraft's exact location. The pilot called after landing complaining about being cleared too high for the approach.during the past months approach (ZSU) has been working traffic inbound to tjsj (san juan ) airport under constant runway closures and system outage conditions. Today's outage of the san juan tower radar ASR8 mixed with the closure of runway 10 shouldn't have been approved because of the safety risk we were adding to an already unsafe scenario. A questionable radar depiction being used (mosaic) added to an approach that takes aircraft over elevated terrain and close to mountainous terrain was a mix of events that should be happening at the same time. I should have asked or at least noticed that aircraft X constant questioning about when I was going to clear them for the approach was a concern to them or see the signs that this was not going to be an effective service to them. Also; I should have asked to train where I was supposed to and not to accept to train in combined positions since all the situations occurring; I felt; were above my level of experience. Also; I would recommend checking if this combined training was encouraged because of staffing problems since I got my shift changed the day before to an early morning due to staffing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZSU Controller reports of vectoring an aircraft to final and realizes he should be at a lower altitude with the aircraft. Higher MVAs and not working this direction along with the controller's workload led to the aircraft being cleared at a higher then normal altitude. Late updates on the radar possibly due to using MOSAIC Radar were thought to be a problem.

Narrative: Aircraft X was instructed to proceed direct to WESEN intersection and to descend to 4000 ft. RWY 10 was closed and the SAN JUAN tower radar ASR8 was also out for maintenance. This situation caused that all of the approaches were vectored into higher than standard MVA's due to the location of the ILS Rwy 8 being located towards the mountainous terrain southwest of SJU. 15 NW of SJU Aircraft X requested lower but I informed that due to higher MVAs I couldn't approve any lower. The pilot asked if I was planning to clear him to intercept but didn't specify any reasons or objections.Approximately 7 miles NW of PATTY NDB; I instructed Aircraft X to fly heading of 110 and to maintain 4000 feet until established on the localizer and subsequently cleared Aircraft X for the ILS Rwy 8 approach. Because I was also training combined positions in R1/R5/R3/R7 I felt it was safer to clear the aircraft direct WESEN ; this way while I get familiarized working the sector combined I could maintain more control of the traffic on final to SJU. However; due to my lack of experience working these sectors under these conditions; positions combined ;outages and with higher MVAs required; I failed to project that my intercept angle would place Aircraft X too high near the outer marker and that the radar lag the MoSAIC sensor was giving me; I had an inaccurate (delayed)depiction of the aircraft's exact location. The pilot called after landing complaining about being cleared too high for the approach.During the past months approach (ZSU) has been working traffic inbound to TJSJ (San Juan ) airport under constant runway closures and system outage conditions. Today's outage of the San Juan tower radar ASR8 mixed with the closure of runway 10 shouldn't have been approved because of the safety risk we were adding to an already unsafe scenario. A questionable radar depiction being used (MOSAIC) added to an approach that takes aircraft over elevated terrain and close to mountainous terrain was a mix of events that should be happening at the same time. I should have asked or at least noticed that Aircraft X constant questioning about when I was going to clear them for the approach was a concern to them or see the signs that this was not going to be an effective service to them. Also; I should have asked to train where I was supposed to and not to accept to train in combined positions since all the situations occurring; I felt; were above my level of experience. Also; I would recommend checking if this combined training was encouraged because of staffing problems since I got my shift changed the day before to an early morning due to staffing.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.