Narrative:

The RNAV approach to runway 28 was not authorized at night. We were conducting VOR approaches to runway 28. The weather all shift had been variable with snow squalls moving through. In between squalls the ceiling and visibility supported visual approaches. During the snow squalls; visibility dropped to as low as 1 SM. Winds were very strong and gusty out of the west. I was working all positions from the tower cab during the mid-shift.[the aircraft] checked on with current ATIS and I advised them to expect the VOR approach to runway 28. The pilot stated they 'didn't have the charts for that approach'. I read them the current wind and offered the ILS to runway 1 as an alternative. They could not accept runway 1 due to the winds. The pilot asked if the visual approach to runway 28 was available. I said it was and began vectoring the aircraft for the visual approach. During the next few minutes a snow squall started moving through and visibility started to deteriorate. I turned up the lights as high as possible and vectored the aircraft to approach the airport from the south (the snow squall appeared out the windows to be more to the north). The aircraft reported the field in sight and I cleared them for the visual approach. They conducted the visual approach and landed without incident despite the deteriorating conditions. During final approach and landing; visibility was approximately 4 SM in light snow.this did not feel like a safe operation. The pilot should have the charts available to conduct all instrument approaches at the destination airport. We need the RNAV approach to runway 28 to be authorized at night again. The RNAV approach produces consistent approaches from the aircraft and makes for a much safer operation.using the VOR approach to runway 28 is not a safe operation. Pilots do not consistently fly the approach properly. I estimate approximately 50% of the pilots do not track the final approach course properly. Some pilots wander left and right of course while others fly a steady track but are offset from the proper approach course by a half mile. The VOR approach course is not aligned with the runway which requires the pilots to maneuver on short final at low altitude to line up with the runway. I don't know if the radio signal from the VOR is not reliable enough to provide consistent approaches or if the pilots don't get enough experience with VOR approaches to be proficient but we should not be relying on the VOR approach as our only option for runway 28.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALB controller reported having to vector an aircraft in snow squalls at night to a runway not served by a useable standard instrument approach.

Narrative: The RNAV approach to Runway 28 was not authorized at night. We were conducting VOR approaches to Runway 28. The weather all shift had been variable with snow squalls moving through. In between squalls the ceiling and visibility supported visual approaches. During the snow squalls; visibility dropped to as low as 1 SM. Winds were very strong and gusty out of the west. I was working all positions from the tower cab during the mid-shift.[The aircraft] checked on with current ATIS and I advised them to expect the VOR approach to Runway 28. The pilot stated they 'didn't have the charts for that approach'. I read them the current wind and offered the ILS to Runway 1 as an alternative. They could not accept Runway 1 due to the winds. The pilot asked if the visual approach to Runway 28 was available. I said it was and began vectoring the aircraft for the visual approach. During the next few minutes a snow squall started moving through and visibility started to deteriorate. I turned up the lights as high as possible and vectored the aircraft to approach the airport from the south (the snow squall appeared out the windows to be more to the north). The aircraft reported the field in sight and I cleared them for the visual approach. They conducted the visual approach and landed without incident despite the deteriorating conditions. During final approach and landing; visibility was approximately 4 SM in light snow.This did not feel like a safe operation. The pilot should have the charts available to conduct all instrument approaches at the destination airport. We need the RNAV approach to Runway 28 to be authorized at night again. The RNAV approach produces consistent approaches from the aircraft and makes for a much safer operation.Using the VOR approach to Runway 28 is not a safe operation. Pilots do not consistently fly the approach properly. I estimate approximately 50% of the pilots do not track the final approach course properly. Some pilots wander left and right of course while others fly a steady track but are offset from the proper approach course by a half mile. The VOR approach course is not aligned with the runway which requires the pilots to maneuver on short final at low altitude to line up with the runway. I don't know if the radio signal from the VOR is not reliable enough to provide consistent approaches or if the pilots don't get enough experience with VOR approaches to be proficient but we should not be relying on the VOR approach as our only option for Runway 28.

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.