Narrative:

Aircraft over big sur at 9000 ft stated he had a vacuum system failure and wanted to go to the nearest VFR airport. Gave vector to king city (kic). Near kic; pilot stated he wanted to continue on to his original destination of toa. Toa was IFR but the pilot stated he would do a partial panel approach. After some discussion; aircraft requested clearance to vny; IFR. Vny was VFR at the time. Aircraft must have made it because I haven't heard any bad news. I'm not an instrument rated pilot but flying partial panel I thought was an emergency in itself. (Why go looking for it?) even at night; flight without attitude instruments is dicey! For a controller who might not be a pilot; this might lead him or her to believe vacuum system failure and partial panel IFR is no big deal!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZOA CTLR QUESTIONS PLT'S DECISION TO CONTINUE FLT AFTER LOSS OF VACUUM SYS.

Narrative: ACFT OVER BIG SUR AT 9000 FT STATED HE HAD A VACUUM SYS FAILURE AND WANTED TO GO TO THE NEAREST VFR ARPT. GAVE VECTOR TO KING CITY (KIC). NEAR KIC; PLT STATED HE WANTED TO CONTINUE ON TO HIS ORIGINAL DEST OF TOA. TOA WAS IFR BUT THE PLT STATED HE WOULD DO A PARTIAL PANEL APCH. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION; ACFT REQUESTED CLRNC TO VNY; IFR. VNY WAS VFR AT THE TIME. ACFT MUST HAVE MADE IT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY BAD NEWS. I'M NOT AN INST RATED PLT BUT FLYING PARTIAL PANEL I THOUGHT WAS AN EMER IN ITSELF. (WHY GO LOOKING FOR IT?) EVEN AT NIGHT; FLT WITHOUT ATTITUDE INSTS IS DICEY! FOR A CTLR WHO MIGHT NOT BE A PLT; THIS MIGHT LEAD HIM OR HER TO BELIEVE VACUUM SYS FAILURE AND PARTIAL PANEL IFR IS NO BIG DEAL!

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.