Narrative:

Elko tower called to say the airport was IFR and he was sending aircraft X to us for an IFR approach. The call sign was aircraft X. The aircraft said tower sent him to us for an IFR approach. Aircraft X wanted to intercept the localizer. He was 5.5 mi from the airport at 6000 ft. Airport elevation is 5140 ft. He was given a clearance to the VOR for an lda approach with a climb to 11000 ft. 11000 ft is the minimum IFR altitude without being on a published segment. Aircraft X continued following the freeway saying he had good ground visibility. Aircraft X was now at 5800 ft. Aircraft X said he could make the airport. Aircraft X was asked what his visibility was. He said 2 1/2 mi. The controller asked aircraft X if he had the airport in sight; he said yes. Aircraft X was cleared visual approach to the airport. The tower was told aircraft X was on a visual approach 2 1/2 mi out. Tower's response was 'ok.' the tower then asked for a clearance on another aircraft which was given with a hold for release. He asked how long the 'hfr' would be. He was told the release would be when aircraft X was down or canceled. Aircraft X did not want to be IFR. At no time did he try to climb. The WX was getting worse and aircraft X didn't want to be in the air. Aircraft X landed gear up; but 2 center controllers were relieved from duty. The decision for tower to send the aircraft to center made no sense. Why not ask for special VFR? 6 mi from the airport is only 1 mi from control zone. We felt helping the aircraft land was the most important; even if tower reported the airport IFR. Ctrs don't control runways. With the pilot having 'good' ground visibility and the airport; we felt it was best to let him land.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLC CTLR DESCRIBED INCIDENT WHEN VFR ACFT WAS RELUCTANT TO CLB IN IMC FOR IFR CLRNC; ENDING WITH CTLR DECERTIFICATION AND GEAR UP LNDG.

Narrative: ELKO TWR CALLED TO SAY THE ARPT WAS IFR AND HE WAS SENDING ACFT X TO US FOR AN IFR APCH. THE CALL SIGN WAS ACFT X. THE ACFT SAID TWR SENT HIM TO US FOR AN IFR APCH. ACFT X WANTED TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. HE WAS 5.5 MI FROM THE ARPT AT 6000 FT. ARPT ELEVATION IS 5140 FT. HE WAS GIVEN A CLRNC TO THE VOR FOR AN LDA APCH WITH A CLB TO 11000 FT. 11000 FT IS THE MINIMUM IFR ALT WITHOUT BEING ON A PUBLISHED SEGMENT. ACFT X CONTINUED FOLLOWING THE FREEWAY SAYING HE HAD GOOD GND VISIBILITY. ACFT X WAS NOW AT 5800 FT. ACFT X SAID HE COULD MAKE THE ARPT. ACFT X WAS ASKED WHAT HIS VISIBILITY WAS. HE SAID 2 1/2 MI. THE CTLR ASKED ACFT X IF HE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT; HE SAID YES. ACFT X WAS CLRED VISUAL APCH TO THE ARPT. THE TWR WAS TOLD ACFT X WAS ON A VISUAL APCH 2 1/2 MI OUT. TWR'S RESPONSE WAS 'OK.' THE TWR THEN ASKED FOR A CLRNC ON ANOTHER ACFT WHICH WAS GIVEN WITH A HOLD FOR RELEASE. HE ASKED HOW LONG THE 'HFR' WOULD BE. HE WAS TOLD THE RELEASE WOULD BE WHEN ACFT X WAS DOWN OR CANCELED. ACFT X DID NOT WANT TO BE IFR. AT NO TIME DID HE TRY TO CLB. THE WX WAS GETTING WORSE AND ACFT X DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THE AIR. ACFT X LANDED GEAR UP; BUT 2 CTR CTLRS WERE RELIEVED FROM DUTY. THE DECISION FOR TWR TO SEND THE ACFT TO CTR MADE NO SENSE. WHY NOT ASK FOR SPECIAL VFR? 6 MI FROM THE ARPT IS ONLY 1 MI FROM CTL ZONE. WE FELT HELPING THE ACFT LAND WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT; EVEN IF TWR RPTED THE ARPT IFR. CTRS DON'T CTL RWYS. WITH THE PLT HAVING 'GOOD' GND VISIBILITY AND THE ARPT; WE FELT IT WAS BEST TO LET HIM LAND.

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.