Narrative:

I filed an IFR flight plan from ZZZ to hpn. When I filed I received a NOTAM from millville FSS that the primary runway 16/34 at hpn was closed from 2400 to 0600 local time. The secondary runway and the airport were not notamed closed. After takeoff ny TRACON (not the hpn sector) informed us that hpn was notamed closed. We informed him only 16/34 was closed when we were briefed a little over an hour ago. The controller said he would pass that on to the hpn sector controller. When we were handed off to the hpn sector, the new controller informed us that he could not issue a clearance to a closed airport. We asked for an ILS to 16 circle to land 29 or if he could not approve that a VOR a to any runway. The WX was well above the VOR a minimums. He again informed us that he could not issue a clearance to a closed airport. We stated that neither the airport or 12/29 was closed and that since the VOR a did not specify a runway he could issue a clearance for the VOR a without any mention of 16/34. He again insisted that he could not issue a clearance to a closed airport, but added maybe they would open the airport for us if we contacted airport operations. While my co-pilot was trying to contact airport operations the controller called to state that he had received permission for us to use runway 16 from airport operations and he cleared us for the ILS to 16. On the ground we contacted airport operations they stated they had never had a problem with us using 12/29 and had no idea why ny TRACON would not issue an approach clearance. Airport operations also confirmed the airport was never closed or notamed closed. I can understand that there may be restrictions on issuing approach clearances to closed runways. My problem is that this controller insisted on saying the airport was closed contrary to the NOTAMS and refused to issue a clearance for the VOR a, that is to the airport not a specific runway. The controller worked very hard to be helpful (called the airport to open the closed runway/airport), but I truly believe there is an education issue with this controller. If no one was at the airport operations to approve our use of runway 16, I do not believe we could have convinced the controller to issue a perfectly legitimate clearance for the VOR a. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the pilot revealed that the scheduled trip was planned for VFR, but had to be changed to IFR just before departure. The pilot called FSS, filed the IFR flight plan and was given the NOTAM information, ie runway closed, not the airport. Both the departure and arrival airport towers were closed because of the hour and a phone release was required and obtained from N90 TRACON. The initial controller relayed the NOTAM information, but was corrected by the pilot as to runway versus airport. The controller then said he would forward the corrected information to the next sector and stated, 'good luck'. The subsequent controller refused to issue the approach clearance indicating the airport was notamed closed. The reporter indicated that it was his belief the subject controller did not understand what was being requested and what he could or could not approve.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HELI ENRTE TO HPN IS REFUSED VOR CLRNC BY ATC.

Narrative: I FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN FROM ZZZ TO HPN. WHEN I FILED I RECEIVED A NOTAM FROM MILLVILLE FSS THAT THE PRIMARY RWY 16/34 AT HPN WAS CLOSED FROM 2400 TO 0600 LOCAL TIME. THE SECONDARY RWY AND THE ARPT WERE NOT NOTAMED CLOSED. AFTER TKOF NY TRACON (NOT THE HPN SECTOR) INFORMED US THAT HPN WAS NOTAMED CLOSED. WE INFORMED HIM ONLY 16/34 WAS CLOSED WHEN WE WERE BRIEFED A LITTLE OVER AN HOUR AGO. THE CTLR SAID HE WOULD PASS THAT ON TO THE HPN SECTOR CTLR. WHEN WE WERE HANDED OFF TO THE HPN SECTOR, THE NEW CTLR INFORMED US THAT HE COULD NOT ISSUE A CLRNC TO A CLOSED ARPT. WE ASKED FOR AN ILS TO 16 CIRCLE TO LAND 29 OR IF HE COULD NOT APPROVE THAT A VOR A TO ANY RWY. THE WX WAS WELL ABOVE THE VOR A MINIMUMS. HE AGAIN INFORMED US THAT HE COULD NOT ISSUE A CLRNC TO A CLOSED ARPT. WE STATED THAT NEITHER THE ARPT OR 12/29 WAS CLOSED AND THAT SINCE THE VOR A DID NOT SPECIFY A RWY HE COULD ISSUE A CLRNC FOR THE VOR A WITHOUT ANY MENTION OF 16/34. HE AGAIN INSISTED THAT HE COULD NOT ISSUE A CLRNC TO A CLOSED ARPT, BUT ADDED MAYBE THEY WOULD OPEN THE ARPT FOR US IF WE CONTACTED ARPT OPS. WHILE MY CO-PLT WAS TRYING TO CONTACT ARPT OPS THE CTLR CALLED TO STATE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED PERMISSION FOR US TO USE RWY 16 FROM ARPT OPS AND HE CLRED US FOR THE ILS TO 16. ON THE GND WE CONTACTED ARPT OPS THEY STATED THEY HAD NEVER HAD A PROB WITH US USING 12/29 AND HAD NO IDEA WHY NY TRACON WOULD NOT ISSUE AN APCH CLRNC. ARPT OPS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ARPT WAS NEVER CLOSED OR NOTAMED CLOSED. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE RESTRICTIONS ON ISSUING APCH CLEARANCES TO CLOSED RWYS. MY PROBLEM IS THAT THIS CTLR INSISTED ON SAYING THE ARPT WAS CLOSED CONTRARY TO THE NOTAMS AND REFUSED TO ISSUE A CLRNC FOR THE VOR A, THAT IS TO THE ARPT NOT A SPECIFIC RWY. THE CTLR WORKED VERY HARD TO BE HELPFUL (CALLED THE ARPT TO OPEN THE CLOSED RWY/ARPT), BUT I TRULY BELIEVE THERE IS AN EDUCATION ISSUE WITH THIS CTLR. IF NO ONE WAS AT THE ARPT OPS TO APPROVE OUR USE OF RWY 16, I DO NOT BELIEVE WE COULD HAVE CONVINCED THE CTLR TO ISSUE A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE CLRNC FOR THE VOR A. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE PLT REVEALED THAT THE SCHEDULED TRIP WAS PLANNED FOR VFR, BUT HAD TO BE CHANGED TO IFR JUST BEFORE DEP. THE PLT CALLED FSS, FILED THE IFR FLT PLAN AND WAS GIVEN THE NOTAM INFO, IE RWY CLOSED, NOT THE ARPT. BOTH THE DEP AND ARRIVAL ARPT TWRS WERE CLOSED BECAUSE OF THE HOUR AND A PHONE RELEASE WAS REQUIRED AND OBTAINED FROM N90 TRACON. THE INITIAL CTLR RELAYED THE NOTAM INFO, BUT WAS CORRECTED BY THE PLT AS TO RWY VERSUS ARPT. THE CTLR THEN SAID HE WOULD FORWARD THE CORRECTED INFO TO THE NEXT SECTOR AND STATED, 'GOOD LUCK'. THE SUBSEQUENT CTLR REFUSED TO ISSUE THE APCH CLRNC INDICATING THE ARPT WAS NOTAMED CLOSED. THE RPTR INDICATED THAT IT WAS HIS BELIEF THE SUBJECT CTLR DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED AND WHAT HE COULD OR COULD NOT APPROVE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.