Narrative:

I came back into the area to train my trainee on the radar assist position. The sector was somewhat busy at the time; so we jumped right in. Aircraft X; IFR C525 was in the area; I noted a 070b090 altitude; and the aircraft was doing airwork IFR. Aircraft Y; VFR C172 was on a practice ILS. Aircraft Z was not in our airspace yet; but was in handoff status northeast-bound IFR at 5;000 feet.aircraft X requested the ILS approach with vectors but the radar controller gave them a clearance to the VOR for the full ILS approach; and cleared them accordingly. They were advised to contact FSS for notams and weather as well. There were a fair amount of untagged targets in the vicinity of the airport VOR. Aircraft X proceeded over the VOR and then east and southeast-bound; which was not in conformance with what is on the ILS approach plate; procedure turn is completed west of the localizer course. I mentioned this to the radar controller; but nothing was said to the airplane. Aircraft X reported passing the final approach fix and meanwhile aircraft Y reported airborne off the VFR practice ILS approach. They were advised to maintain VFR at 4;000 feet in the hold over the VOR; presumably to accommodate aircraft X going underneath on the ILS and to be above other VFR traffic. There was an untracked VFR target east-west about to pass through the localizer course at 3;500 feet. As aircraft X turned inbound from the wrong side of the procedure turn I made a comment to radar controller that 'that was a bad place for that VFR at 3;500 to be' and the controller agreed. Meanwhile; aircraft X was northbound; inbound on the localizer still at 3;800 feet. Radar controller called the untracked target as traffic; and it appeared to me that it was going to be fairly close.aircraft X could have been broken off the approach but was not; and they continued inbound. Aircraft X asked if they were cleared for the approach; and the untracked VFR traffic was called again to them. I believe aircraft X may have had an RA from that untracked target as they climbed to 4;200 feet; but they did not tell us as such. Meanwhile; aircraft Z; IFR northeast-bound at 5;000 was overhead the VOR at this point; so there was a loss of separation at this point between aircraft X and aircraft Z.aircraft X advised they were inbound descending on the approach; and that they would be a missed approach. Aircraft X was changed to advisory frequency and to call airborne on the missed. They appeared to initially follow the published missed approach procedure; as a left turn was accomplished and they were west of the field at 2;900 feet looking like they were heading towards the missed approach holding fix. They checked on the frequency saying they were missed approach; and radar controller issued them a climb to 4;000 feet; couldn't go higher due to aircraft Z still being in the area. Aircraft X; instead of entering the hold continued a left turn eastbound; then northeast-bound; and climbed above 4;000 feet. Radar controller asked what they were doing; and they advised they wanted to leave the area due to traffic and get an IFR clearance to their destination at 5000 feet. We could not do so since aircraft X took it on their own to not fly the published missed approach; they were now IFR below the mia of 4;900 feet; and to add to this aircraft Z was IFR at 5;000 feet 4 miles in front of aircraft X. Aircraft X asked for instructions; at which point the radar controller [handled the situation] for aircraft X; turned them to a 290 heading away from terrain and aircraft Z. Aircraft X cancelled IFR and proceeded northeast-bound at 5;500 feet into the adjacent TRACON airspace. There was VFR traffic at 5;500 feet that radar advised them about that aircraft X would have been a factor with if it wasn't for the traffic call.there were two major issues at play in this scenario. First; the crew of aircraft X acted wrong several times and ultimately took things into their own hands. You just cannot execute your own plan without asking ATC first; as we saw it put us in quite the pickle. Their actions resulted in a loss of separation twice; once with terrain; and one with another aircraft. They were acting like they were the only aircraft out there; and didn't seem to understand that in the center world we don't vector for alternate missed approaches. I've never seen an IFR aircraft decide to do just whatever they wanted to do without clearance; but today was the first time. It seemed blatant to me. Secondly; the radar controller could have controlled the situation better from the onset. As soon as they saw the untracked target cutting across the localizer aircraft X should have been broken off the approach to the west southwest and been vectored around for another attempt.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZBW Center Controller conducting training on an Assist position reported an aircraft did not comply with several ATC instructions putting it into conflict with other aircraft and below the Minimum IFR Altitude.

Narrative: I came back into the area to train my trainee on the Radar Assist position. The sector was somewhat busy at the time; so we jumped right in. Aircraft X; IFR C525 was in the area; I noted a 070B090 altitude; and the aircraft was doing airwork IFR. Aircraft Y; VFR C172 was on a practice ILS. Aircraft Z was not in our airspace yet; but was in handoff status northeast-bound IFR at 5;000 feet.Aircraft X requested the ILS approach with vectors but the Radar Controller gave them a clearance to the VOR for the full ILS approach; and cleared them accordingly. They were advised to contact FSS for NOTAMs and weather as well. There were a fair amount of untagged targets in the vicinity of the airport VOR. Aircraft X proceeded over the VOR and then east and southeast-bound; which was not in conformance with what is on the ILS approach plate; procedure turn is completed west of the localizer course. I mentioned this to the Radar Controller; but nothing was said to the airplane. Aircraft X reported passing the Final Approach Fix and meanwhile Aircraft Y reported airborne off the VFR practice ILS approach. They were advised to maintain VFR at 4;000 feet in the hold over the VOR; presumably to accommodate Aircraft X going underneath on the ILS and to be above other VFR traffic. There was an untracked VFR target east-west about to pass through the localizer course at 3;500 feet. As Aircraft X turned inbound from the wrong side of the procedure turn I made a comment to Radar Controller that 'that was a bad place for that VFR at 3;500 to be' and the controller agreed. Meanwhile; Aircraft X was northbound; inbound on the localizer still at 3;800 feet. Radar Controller called the untracked target as traffic; and it appeared to me that it was going to be fairly close.Aircraft X could have been broken off the approach but was not; and they continued inbound. Aircraft X asked if they were cleared for the approach; and the untracked VFR traffic was called again to them. I believe Aircraft X may have had an RA from that untracked target as they climbed to 4;200 feet; but they did not tell us as such. Meanwhile; Aircraft Z; IFR northeast-bound at 5;000 was overhead the VOR at this point; so there was a loss of separation at this point between Aircraft X and Aircraft Z.Aircraft X advised they were inbound descending on the approach; and that they would be a missed approach. Aircraft X was changed to advisory frequency and to call airborne on the missed. They appeared to initially follow the published missed approach procedure; as a left turn was accomplished and they were west of the field at 2;900 feet looking like they were heading towards the missed approach holding fix. They checked on the frequency saying they were missed approach; and Radar Controller issued them a climb to 4;000 feet; couldn't go higher due to Aircraft Z still being in the area. Aircraft X; instead of entering the hold continued a left turn eastbound; then northeast-bound; and climbed above 4;000 feet. Radar Controller asked what they were doing; and they advised they wanted to leave the area due to traffic and get an IFR clearance to their destination at 5000 feet. We could not do so since Aircraft X took it on their own to not fly the published missed approach; they were now IFR below the MIA of 4;900 feet; and to add to this Aircraft Z was IFR at 5;000 feet 4 miles in front of Aircraft X. Aircraft X asked for instructions; at which point the Radar Controller [handled the situation] for Aircraft X; turned them to a 290 heading away from terrain and Aircraft Z. Aircraft X cancelled IFR and proceeded northeast-bound at 5;500 feet into the adjacent TRACON airspace. There was VFR traffic at 5;500 feet that Radar advised them about that Aircraft X would have been a factor with if it wasn't for the traffic call.There were two major issues at play in this scenario. First; the crew of Aircraft X acted wrong several times and ultimately took things into their own hands. You just cannot execute your own plan without asking ATC first; as we saw it put us in quite the pickle. Their actions resulted in a loss of separation twice; once with terrain; and one with another aircraft. They were acting like they were the only aircraft out there; and didn't seem to understand that in the Center world we don't vector for alternate missed approaches. I've never seen an IFR aircraft decide to do just whatever they wanted to do without clearance; but today was the first time. It seemed blatant to me. Secondly; the Radar Controller could have controlled the situation better from the onset. As soon as they saw the untracked target cutting across the localizer Aircraft X should have been broken off the approach to the west southwest and been vectored around for another attempt.

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.