Narrative:

Due to hazy conditions at mem airport; the inbounds that begin at approximately XA00 local time would be accomplished with staggered ILS approachs to runways 36L/right. In our status information area; the DME for runway 36R was listed as OTS. I was working the east final position; vectoring aircraft for runway 36R and advising them of the outage. 2 CRJ2's; aircraft X and aircraft Y; advised they could not accept the approach. Aircraft X was vectored for the ILS runway 36L; and aircraft Y was vectored for the ILS runway 27. Later; an A306 reported they were receiving the DME just fine. I verified that they were receiving the ILS runway 36R DME and not the mem VOR DME. They said it was indeed the ILS runway 36R DME they were receiving. I reported that the DME was being received to supervision. At that time; I was told by the operations manager that maintenance was working on it and the signal may be unreliable. At approximately XB00 local time; the DME was reported back in service. 2 things bother me. First; if WX conditions dictate that we will use ILS approachs during an inbound push; why is the operation manager giving maintenance a component of that approach to work on? At approximately XC30-XD00 local time; we are no longer in an arrival push; and letting the DME go to maintenance would not have nearly the impact. Second; why was the status of the DME listed as out of maintenance and the signal considered unreliable? This information is different than the blanket OTS call that I gave the pilots. I do not know if the pilots of the 2 CRJ2's would have been willing to attempt the approachs; but at least they would have been able to make that decision with the most accurate information.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MEM CTLR VOICED CONCERN REGARDING SUPVR DECISION TO RELEASE ILS DME TO MAINT DURING BUSY TFC PERIOD AND INACCURATE STATUS INFO.

Narrative: DUE TO HAZY CONDITIONS AT MEM ARPT; THE INBOUNDS THAT BEGIN AT APPROX XA00 LCL TIME WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH STAGGERED ILS APCHS TO RWYS 36L/R. IN OUR STATUS INFO AREA; THE DME FOR RWY 36R WAS LISTED AS OTS. I WAS WORKING THE E FINAL POS; VECTORING ACFT FOR RWY 36R AND ADVISING THEM OF THE OUTAGE. 2 CRJ2'S; ACFT X AND ACFT Y; ADVISED THEY COULD NOT ACCEPT THE APCH. ACFT X WAS VECTORED FOR THE ILS RWY 36L; AND ACFT Y WAS VECTORED FOR THE ILS RWY 27. LATER; AN A306 RPTED THEY WERE RECEIVING THE DME JUST FINE. I VERIFIED THAT THEY WERE RECEIVING THE ILS RWY 36R DME AND NOT THE MEM VOR DME. THEY SAID IT WAS INDEED THE ILS RWY 36R DME THEY WERE RECEIVING. I RPTED THAT THE DME WAS BEING RECEIVED TO SUPERVISION. AT THAT TIME; I WAS TOLD BY THE OPS MGR THAT MAINT WAS WORKING ON IT AND THE SIGNAL MAY BE UNRELIABLE. AT APPROX XB00 LCL TIME; THE DME WAS RPTED BACK IN SVC. 2 THINGS BOTHER ME. FIRST; IF WX CONDITIONS DICTATE THAT WE WILL USE ILS APCHS DURING AN INBOUND PUSH; WHY IS THE OP MGR GIVING MAINT A COMPONENT OF THAT APCH TO WORK ON? AT APPROX XC30-XD00 LCL TIME; WE ARE NO LONGER IN AN ARR PUSH; AND LETTING THE DME GO TO MAINT WOULD NOT HAVE NEARLY THE IMPACT. SECOND; WHY WAS THE STATUS OF THE DME LISTED AS OUT OF MAINT AND THE SIGNAL CONSIDERED UNRELIABLE? THIS INFO IS DIFFERENT THAN THE BLANKET OTS CALL THAT I GAVE THE PLTS. I DO NOT KNOW IF THE PLTS OF THE 2 CRJ2'S WOULD HAVE BEEN WILLING TO ATTEMPT THE APCHS; BUT AT LEAST THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION WITH THE MOST ACCURATE INFO.

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.