ZOA controller questions pilot's decision to continue flight after loss of vacuum system.

Attributes
ACN	663929
Time
Date	200507
Place
Locale Reference	navaid : bsr.vortac
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl single value : 9000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zoa.artcc
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	cruise : level
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller radar : 19 controller time certified in position1 : 19
ASRS Report	663929
Person 2
Affiliation	other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	flight crew : diverted to another airport none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance Aircraft
Primary Problem	Aircraft

Narrative:

Aircraft over big sur at 9000 ft stated he had a vacuum system failure and wanted to go to the nearest VFR airport. Gave vector to king city (kic). Near kic; pilot stated he wanted to continue on to his original destination of toa. Toa was IFR but the pilot stated he would do a partial panel approach. After some discussion; aircraft requested clearance to vny; IFR. Vny was VFR at the time. Aircraft must have made it because I haven't heard any bad news. I'm not an instrument rated pilot but flying partial panel I thought was an emergency in itself. (Why go looking for it?) even at night; flight without attitude instruments is dicey! For a controller who might not be a pilot; this might lead him or her to believe vacuum system failure and partial panel IFR is no big deal!

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZOA CTLR QUESTIONS PLT'S DECISION TO CONTINUE FLT AFTER LOSS OF VACUUM SYS.

Narrative: ACFT OVER BIG SUR AT 9000 FT STATED HE HAD A VACUUM SYS FAILURE AND WANTED TO GO TO THE NEAREST VFR ARPT. GAVE VECTOR TO KING CITY (KIC). NEAR KIC; PLT STATED HE WANTED TO CONTINUE ON TO HIS ORIGINAL DEST OF TOA. TOA WAS IFR BUT THE PLT STATED HE WOULD DO A PARTIAL PANEL APCH. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION; ACFT REQUESTED CLRNC TO VNY; IFR. VNY WAS VFR AT THE TIME. ACFT MUST HAVE MADE IT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY BAD NEWS. I'M NOT AN INST RATED PLT BUT FLYING PARTIAL PANEL I THOUGHT WAS AN EMER IN ITSELF. (WHY GO LOOKING FOR IT?) EVEN AT NIGHT; FLT WITHOUT ATTITUDE INSTS IS DICEY! FOR A CTLR WHO MIGHT NOT BE A PLT; THIS MIGHT LEAD HIM OR HER TO BELIEVE VACUUM SYS FAILURE AND PARTIAL PANEL IFR IS NO BIG DEAL!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.