Enroute supervisor expressed concern regarding a controller's denial of an approach clearance to a c...

Narrative:

Aircraft X calls R12 at FL041; 8 miles north of ZZZ requesting an IFR pickup for an ILS into ZZZ. R12 acknowledges; and informs aircraft X that; 'airport is closed.' aircraft X says; 'that's affirmative; sir; that's our home base and we're looking to get back in there; we do have the ILS tuned in and identified if you could clear the airspace.' R12 says; 'as far as I know there's nobody in the airspace; its uncontrolled; I won't be able to issue you a clearance in there based on the fact its closed.' the pilot flew the approach procedure that he initially requested and landed safely. Part of the problem may have stemmed from a local mission officially moving. Because of this; the tower closed on the midnight shifts and was not available as an emergency airport. However; the tower could remain open for specifically coordinated missions arriving after hours. This information might be the cause of confusion about the responsibilities ATC has to aircraft in flight. Current information does not address the false impression that a controller has the option to deny an approach clearance to a closed airport. We had a similar situation that involved the denial of an approach clearance based on the airport being NOTAM'd closed. Each of these pilots ended up flying instrument procedures in IFR conditions without clearances. Since approach clearances weren't given; there were no cancellation instructions. Since there were no cancellation instructions; there was no basis on which to start a 30-minute clock for search and rescue if something had happened during the approach. Thankfully; these pilots were experienced enough not to be influenced by the controllers' refusals. What if the pilot had a relatively new IFR rating and let himself be intimidated into diverting to another facility during which time he ran out of fuel or picked up a load of ice (weather was a factor in each situation.) we need widespread publication; via clarification of appropriate sections of the 7110.65; to positively confirm that denial of certain services is not an available controller option. We need to define the scope of authority wielded by an individual controller. There needs to be an affirmation that certain decisions; among them being the choice of where to land an aircraft; are solely the decision of the pilot in command.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Enroute Supervisor expressed concern regarding a Controller's denial of an approach clearance to a closed airport; indicating some Controller's are unclear as to their authority limitations.

Narrative: Aircraft X calls R12 at FL041; 8 miles north of ZZZ requesting an IFR pickup for an ILS into ZZZ. R12 acknowledges; and informs Aircraft X that; 'Airport is closed.' Aircraft X says; 'That's affirmative; sir; that's our home base and we're looking to get back in there; we do have the ILS tuned in and identified if you could clear the airspace.' R12 says; 'As far as I know there's nobody in the airspace; its uncontrolled; I won't be able to issue you a clearance in there based on the fact its closed.' The pilot flew the approach procedure that he initially requested and landed safely. Part of the problem may have stemmed from a local mission officially moving. Because of this; the Tower closed on the midnight shifts and was not available as an emergency airport. However; the Tower could remain open for specifically coordinated missions arriving after hours. This information might be the cause of confusion about the responsibilities ATC has to aircraft in flight. Current information does not address the false impression that a Controller has the option to deny an approach clearance to a closed airport. We had a similar situation that involved the denial of an approach clearance based on the airport being NOTAM'd closed. Each of these pilots ended up flying instrument procedures in IFR conditions without clearances. Since approach clearances weren't given; there were no cancellation instructions. Since there were no cancellation instructions; there was no basis on which to start a 30-minute clock for search and rescue if something had happened during the approach. Thankfully; these pilots were experienced enough not to be influenced by the Controllers' refusals. What if the pilot had a relatively new IFR rating and let himself be intimidated into diverting to another facility during which time he ran out of fuel or picked up a load of ice (weather was a factor in each situation.) We need widespread publication; via clarification of appropriate sections of the 7110.65; to positively confirm that denial of certain services is not an available Controller option. We need to define the scope of authority wielded by an individual controller. There needs to be an affirmation that certain decisions; among them being the choice of where to land an aircraft; are solely the decision of the Pilot In Command.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

Attributes
ACN	869952
Time
Date	201001
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Environment
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Other Instrument Approach
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Function	Supervisor / CIC
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Enroute supervisor expressed concern regarding a controller's denial of an approach clearance to a closed airport; indicating some controller's are unclear as to their authority limitations.