A90 TRACON controller reported an aircraft conducting a published charted visual approach descended ...

Narrative:

Aircraft X was being vectored for the light visual approach to runway 33L at bos. The aircraft was level at the assigned altitude of 1800 feet (the crossing altitude on the approach). I issued a clearance direct lyhtt. Soon after I observed the aircraft at 1700 feet which drew my attention but didn't draw any alarm as mode C often varies 100 feet. When I observed the very next hit at 1500 feet I issued a low altitude alert and the crossing altitude at lyhtt.as I was speaking the next hit came at 1300 feet and you can hear the MSAW alert in the background. The pilot simply responded with a hurried 'roger'. The aircraft continued a descent to 1000 feet when I issued instructions to again check altitude immediately followed by a heading and altitude to maintain. Again; a hurried 'roger'. The descent from level flight at 1800 feet to 1300 feet occurred in less than 10 seconds. That's a 3000 foot per minute descent rate from level flight. In the end; I vectored the aircraft out to a 10 mile straight in and the aircraft landed without incident.the light visual approach was developed for midnight operations to accommodate noise abatement. Since its inception; there has been a common feeling that this approach was potentially unsafe due to its extreme complexity requiring large turns at low altitudes; at night; over the ocean when pilots are most fatigued. One of the turns is about 60 degrees at 1000 feet to a 3.5 mile final. Most airlines require the aircraft be on glide path; at approach speed; in landing configuration; and with wings level by 1000 feet.it is my opinion that this approach works in contradiction to today's safety standards with regards to aircraft performance; airline requirements; and fatigue concerns. While one may argue that this approach has been successfully flown without issue by countless aircraft; it is fact that there have been issues in the past (missed approaches; etc) due to flyability of the approach. With today's fleet of aircraft and the overwhelming desire to stress the importance of stable approaches; it is my opinion that this approach is no longer a valid option due to safety concerns.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A90 TRACON Controller reported an aircraft conducting a published charted visual approach descended below the minimums and executed a missed approach.

Narrative: Aircraft X was being vectored for the Light Visual Approach to runway 33L at BOS. The aircraft was level at the assigned altitude of 1800 feet (the crossing altitude on the approach). I issued a clearance direct LYHTT. Soon after I observed the aircraft at 1700 feet which drew my attention but didn't draw any alarm as mode C often varies 100 feet. When I observed the very next hit at 1500 feet I issued a low altitude alert and the crossing altitude at LYHTT.As I was speaking the next hit came at 1300 feet and you can hear the MSAW alert in the background. The pilot simply responded with a hurried 'roger'. The aircraft continued a descent to 1000 feet when I issued instructions to again check altitude immediately followed by a heading and altitude to maintain. Again; a hurried 'Roger'. The descent from level flight at 1800 feet to 1300 feet occurred in less than 10 seconds. That's a 3000 foot per minute descent rate from level flight. In the end; I vectored the aircraft out to a 10 mile straight in and the aircraft landed without incident.The Light Visual Approach was developed for midnight operations to accommodate noise abatement. Since its inception; there has been a common feeling that this approach was potentially unsafe due to its extreme complexity requiring large turns at low altitudes; at night; over the ocean when pilots are most fatigued. One of the turns is about 60 degrees at 1000 feet to a 3.5 mile final. Most airlines require the aircraft be on glide path; at approach speed; in landing configuration; and with wings level by 1000 feet.It is my opinion that this approach works in contradiction to today's safety standards with regards to aircraft performance; airline requirements; and fatigue concerns. While one may argue that this approach has been successfully flown without issue by countless aircraft; it is fact that there have been issues in the past (missed approaches; etc) due to flyability of the approach. With today's fleet of aircraft and the overwhelming desire to stress the importance of stable approaches; it is my opinion that this approach is no longer a valid option due to safety concerns.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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	1362477
Time
Date	201606
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	A90.TRACON
State Reference	NH
Environment
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A319
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 14
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach

A90 TRACON controller reported an aircraft conducting a published charted visual approach descended below the minimums and executed a missed approach.