LIFEGUARD FLT ON APCH WHEN ILS GOES TO ALARM STATUS. CTLR WOULD HAVE ASSIGNED VOR APCH; BUT IT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE.

Narrative

A LIFEGUARD JET INBOUND TO ZZZ. ILS RWY XX IN USE AND BELOW MINIMUMS TO VECTOR FOR VISUAL APCH. TWR CALLED AND STATED THAT THE ILS RWY XY WAS OUT TO MAINT AND THEY WERE RECEIVING ALARMS ON THE ILS RWY XX. I INFORMED THE PLT WHO STATED THEY HAD A GOOD IDENT ON THE LOC. IF IT HAD BEEN AVAILABLE; I WOULD HAVE VECTORED THIS ACFT FOR A VOR RWY YY CIRCLING APCH TO RWY XX. THIS WOULD HAVE SAVED THE LIFEGUARD FLT TIME AND WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER THAN TO TRUST QUESTIONABLE EQUIP WHICH WAS IN ALARM. THIS APCH (VOR RWY YY ZZZ) IS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO A PERMANENT RWY CLOSURE OF RWY YY AT ZZZ. THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY ATTEMPT TO KEEP THIS APCH. THERE ARE SEVERAL SAFETY ISSUES THAT ARE NOT BEING LOOKED AT WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THIS APCH. SPECIFICALLY REF XING APCH COURSES AT ZZZ1. AT THIS TIME BOTH ZZZ AND ZZZ1 WERE ON RWY XX. HOWEVER; EARLIER IN THE SHIFT ZZZ WAS USING ILS RWY XX AND ZZZ1 WAS USING ILS RWY ZZ. THESE APCH COURSES CROSS AT OR AROUND THE ZZZZZ INTXN ON THE ILS RWY ZZ TO ZZZ1. THEY ARE CONVERGING COURSES. THERE IS A MISCONCEPTION AMONG BOTH CTLRS AND MGRS THAT THE XING ALTS ALLOW FOR AN ACFT ON THE ILS RWY XX TO ZZZ TO CROSS UNDER AN ACFT ON THE ILS RWY ZZ AT ZZZ1 AT ZZZZZ INTXN. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SEPARATION WOULD BE MAINTAINED IN THE INSTANCE. PRIOR TO THE VOR RWY YY APCH INTO ZZZ BEING ELIMINATED; IT WAS A COMMON PRACTICE TO RUN VOR RWY YY CIRCLE TO RWY XX AT ZZZ APCHS. THIS WAS A SAFER OP. DUE TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE VOR RWY YY TO ZZZ TO SAVE THE FLT CHK COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING IT A VOR-A APCH WE ARE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR A LOSS OF SEPARATION.