Narrative:

A lifeguard jet inbound to ZZZ. ILS runway xx in use and below minimums to vector for visual approach. Tower called and stated that the ILS runway xy was out to maintenance and they were receiving alarms on the ILS runway xx. I informed the pilot who stated they had a good identify on the localizer. If it had been available; I would have vectored this aircraft for a VOR runway yy circling approach to runway xx. This would have saved the lifeguard flight time and would have been safer than to trust questionable equipment which was in alarm. This approach (VOR runway yy ZZZ) is not available due to a permanent runway closure of runway yy at ZZZ. There doesn't appear to be any attempt to keep this approach. There are several safety issues that are not being looked at with the elimination of this approach. Specifically reference crossing approach courses at ZZZ1. At this time both ZZZ and ZZZ1 were on runway xx. However; earlier in the shift ZZZ was using ILS runway xx and ZZZ1 was using ILS runway zz. These approach courses cross at or around the zzzzz intersection on the ILS runway zz to ZZZ1. They are converging courses. There is a misconception among both controllers and mgrs that the crossing altitudes allow for an aircraft on the ILS runway xx to ZZZ to cross under an aircraft on the ILS runway zz at ZZZ1 at zzzzz intersection. I don't believe that separation would be maintained in the instance. Prior to the VOR runway yy approach into ZZZ being eliminated; it was a common practice to run VOR runway yy circle to runway xx at ZZZ approachs. This was a safer operation. Due to the elimination of the VOR runway yy to ZZZ to save the flight check costs associated with making it a VOR-a approach we are setting ourselves up for a loss of separation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LIFEGUARD FLT ON APCH WHEN ILS GOES TO ALARM STATUS. CTLR WOULD HAVE ASSIGNED VOR APCH; BUT IT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE.

Narrative: A LIFEGUARD JET INBOUND TO ZZZ. ILS RWY XX IN USE AND BELOW MINIMUMS TO VECTOR FOR VISUAL APCH. TWR CALLED AND STATED THAT THE ILS RWY XY WAS OUT TO MAINT AND THEY WERE RECEIVING ALARMS ON THE ILS RWY XX. I INFORMED THE PLT WHO STATED THEY HAD A GOOD IDENT ON THE LOC. IF IT HAD BEEN AVAILABLE; I WOULD HAVE VECTORED THIS ACFT FOR A VOR RWY YY CIRCLING APCH TO RWY XX. THIS WOULD HAVE SAVED THE LIFEGUARD FLT TIME AND WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER THAN TO TRUST QUESTIONABLE EQUIP WHICH WAS IN ALARM. THIS APCH (VOR RWY YY ZZZ) IS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO A PERMANENT RWY CLOSURE OF RWY YY AT ZZZ. THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY ATTEMPT TO KEEP THIS APCH. THERE ARE SEVERAL SAFETY ISSUES THAT ARE NOT BEING LOOKED AT WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THIS APCH. SPECIFICALLY REF XING APCH COURSES AT ZZZ1. AT THIS TIME BOTH ZZZ AND ZZZ1 WERE ON RWY XX. HOWEVER; EARLIER IN THE SHIFT ZZZ WAS USING ILS RWY XX AND ZZZ1 WAS USING ILS RWY ZZ. THESE APCH COURSES CROSS AT OR AROUND THE ZZZZZ INTXN ON THE ILS RWY ZZ TO ZZZ1. THEY ARE CONVERGING COURSES. THERE IS A MISCONCEPTION AMONG BOTH CTLRS AND MGRS THAT THE XING ALTS ALLOW FOR AN ACFT ON THE ILS RWY XX TO ZZZ TO CROSS UNDER AN ACFT ON THE ILS RWY ZZ AT ZZZ1 AT ZZZZZ INTXN. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SEPARATION WOULD BE MAINTAINED IN THE INSTANCE. PRIOR TO THE VOR RWY YY APCH INTO ZZZ BEING ELIMINATED; IT WAS A COMMON PRACTICE TO RUN VOR RWY YY CIRCLE TO RWY XX AT ZZZ APCHS. THIS WAS A SAFER OP. DUE TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE VOR RWY YY TO ZZZ TO SAVE THE FLT CHK COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING IT A VOR-A APCH WE ARE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR A LOSS OF SEPARATION.

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.