Narrative:

The sector was at slightly above average traffic numbers; and above average complexity due to multiple approaches; VFR traffic; military refueling and break-ups and den departure traffic climbing above my low sector. I worked a jet into goodland and he requested and commenced a visual approach. During his approach I accepted a hand off on a helicopter. The helicopter had a very hard to understand radio; but I believe that when the pilot checked on he said that he was also planning on the visual to gld. He entered an area of poor radar coverage; I advised him that radar contact was lost and received a position report that I confirmed was within my airspace and also NAVAID limitations for non-radar. I issued a pilot's discretion decent and asked the pilot if they had automated weather and NOTAMS for gld. The pilot said that he did. When traffic allowed; I asked the pilot to report the field for the visual; and after two attempts due to a poor radio in the helicopter; the pilot told me he was requesting the ILS 30 approach. I double checked the NOTAMS in erids before issuing the clearance. I misread the last NOTAM. I believed that the NOTAM said that the runway approach lighting was OTS; when in fact the NOTAM said that the ILS was out of service. I issued a clearance for the aircraft to execute the ILS 30 approach. I changed the aircraft to advisories and advised him to report his cancellation when able. At that point I was being relieved for a break; and during my position review the aircraft canceled IFR with the relieving controller. Workload during this even was coming down from the high; but at the time I felt like I was still a little behind; due to the radio problems; non-radar situation; and other aircraft calling on my other frequency sites. I talked to a supervisor afterwards about a phraseology question related to the pilots request to change his requested approach to confirm that I had handled the situation correctly. The supervisor in talking about the situation realized that the goodland ILS was out of service; via his briefing and confirmed that the aircraft landed safely. I believe that our NOTAM procedure could use work. Currently we have erids set to display 'applicable' NOTAMS for the sector; but in the case of this sector (19) there are usually well over 100 outages posted. The major ones; equipment failures and the like sometimes can get buried; and when workload is high I believe that many controllers don't even check them for the airport they're issuing clearances in and out of. We have seen several instances of aircraft being cleared into airports that are closed because of these problems. Obviously it is ultimately the controller's responsibility; but I would like to see a better way to report major NOTAMS. Many times we'll have an airport with multiple NOTAMS; none of which are very important. A more complete position briefing would have helped; but obviously that would require the previous controller to have been aware of the outage which I don't believe he was. Often with a major outage we will mark a strip and post it in the posting area separate of the outage board. This helps; but only works if the controller realizes that he is affected by an outage.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A ZDV Controller issued an ILS Approach when in fact the ILS was NOTAMed 'Out of Service'. The reporter noted the volume of NOTAMS listed in the ERIDS; and the lack of listing priority; as a contributing factor to the oversight.

Narrative: The sector was at slightly above average traffic numbers; and above average complexity due to multiple approaches; VFR traffic; military refueling and break-ups and DEN departure traffic climbing above my low sector. I worked a jet into Goodland and he requested and commenced a Visual Approach. During his approach I accepted a hand off on a helicopter. The helicopter had a very hard to understand radio; but I believe that when the pilot checked on he said that he was also planning on the visual to GLD. He entered an area of poor RADAR coverage; I advised him that RADAR contact was lost and received a position report that I confirmed was within my airspace and also NAVAID limitations for Non-RADAR. I issued a pilot's discretion decent and asked the pilot if they had automated weather and NOTAMS for GLD. The pilot said that he did. When traffic allowed; I asked the pilot to report the field for the visual; and after two attempts due to a poor radio in the helicopter; the pilot told me he was requesting the ILS 30 Approach. I double checked the NOTAMS in ERIDS before issuing the clearance. I misread the last NOTAM. I believed that the NOTAM said that the runway approach lighting was OTS; when in fact the NOTAM said that the ILS was out of service. I issued a clearance for the aircraft to execute the ILS 30 Approach. I changed the aircraft to advisories and advised him to report his cancellation when able. At that point I was being relieved for a break; and during my position review the aircraft canceled IFR with the relieving controller. Workload during this even was coming down from the high; but at the time I felt like I was still a little behind; due to the radio problems; Non-RADAR situation; and other aircraft calling on my other frequency sites. I talked to a supervisor afterwards about a phraseology question related to the pilots request to change his requested approach to confirm that I had handled the situation correctly. The supervisor in talking about the situation realized that the Goodland ILS was out of service; via his briefing and confirmed that the aircraft landed safely. I believe that our NOTAM procedure could use work. Currently we have ERIDS set to display 'applicable' NOTAMS for the sector; but in the case of this sector (19) there are usually well over 100 outages posted. The major ones; equipment failures and the like sometimes can get buried; and when workload is high I believe that many controllers don't even check them for the airport they're issuing clearances in and out of. We have seen several instances of aircraft being cleared into airports that are closed because of these problems. Obviously it is ultimately the controller's responsibility; but I would like to see a better way to report major NOTAMS. Many times we'll have an airport with multiple NOTAMS; none of which are very important. A more complete position briefing would have helped; but obviously that would require the previous controller to have been aware of the outage which I don't believe he was. Often with a major outage we will mark a strip and post it in the posting area separate of the outage board. This helps; but only works if the controller realizes that he is affected by an outage.

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.