Large Transport
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 1
Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
I assumed the midnight shift radar position.   There was no traffic in the airspace at the time.  Approximately 4 minutes later Aircraft X; was in hand off status from Atlanta Center near the SHINE intersection at 15;000 feet.  I accepted the handoff.  I then glanced at the STARS Radar status area on my scope to ascertain which instrument approaches were in use.  The status area depicted 'I5' for Instrument RWY 05 and 'IL' for instrument RWY 36L.  I decided on RWY 05 as it would be an easier taxi for parking. I quickly brought up the approach plate for RWY 05 for review on the National Information Display System (NIDS) screen as it had been some weeks since I had issued a clearance for that approach. Having covered the NIDS screen with the RWY 05 approach plate; I covered a critical piece of information I had missed earlier on the NIDS screen advising me that the RWY 05 ILS would be out of service until [specific date and time].  I proceeded to vector Aircraft X for the ILS RWY 05 approach with a standard 080 degree intercept affording 25 degrees of intercept at 3;000 feet.  Once established; I instructed Aircraft X to contact the tower on 118.1.  At some point inside the FAF; Aircraft A advised the tower they were not receiving the localizer.  Tower noted the localizer was in alarm and cancelled the approach clearance for Aircraft X. Aircraft X was returned to me on a southeasterly heading climbing to 4;000.  I vectored Aircraft X to the ILS 36L approach; where they landed safely.Having been alerted to the item in the NIDS concerning the equipment outage; I decided to listen to the arrival ATIS because I wanted to hear what Aircraft X had expected for an approach.  The ATIS stated 'ILS RUNWAY 36L RUNWAY 05 APPROACH IN USE'.  This led me to the conclusion that the ATIS; in conjunction with the missed briefing item had led to the error.  Neither I nor the crew of Aircraft X had realized the ILS to RWY 05 was out of service.The briefing item on the NIDS was clearly there; but in my haste to review the approach plate; I did not review the NIDS front page.  Had I done so; I would have noticed this error. The design of the CLT NIDS system does not effectively show the status of each runway. There is a small box in the upper right corner which is updated most frequently by traffic management.  The controllers at the radar positions do not have the ability to manipulate the runway status often leading to delays in updating the status or leaving incorrect information in the Runway Flow area.At the time of this incident; RWY 05 was logged as not available by the remark 'N/A'. Also; runways 36R and 36C were logged as 'normal'.  This was also not correct. It's my recommendation that the status of the runways be easily manipulated and the status of the approaches be more clear in the NIDS system.  Controllers should have the ability to toggle runways as closed or unavailable.  This will lead to less confusion at night when runways close for maintenance.
A CLT TRACON Controller reported that he had issued an approach to an aircraft that reported the ILS out of service. The Controller thought the ILS was operational even though it was not because of information he observed on the National Information Display System (NIDS). The Controller reported the NIDS does not effectively show the status of each runway.