Narrative:

A C750 was on a visual approach to runway 23 about 8 miles north of mmu airport and was descending thru 1;700 ft to turn about a 7 mile final. The local controller called VFR traffic to the C750 at its 10 o'clock and 2 miles climbing slowly northbound out of 1;300 ft. The VFR traffic was a departure off of cdw airport. Mmu was advertising the ILS approach but the C750 was scratch padded as a visual; per the old LOA with N90 and cdw and mmu towers. The pilot said they did not see the traffic and then came right back and said he was responding to an RA and climbed to 2;200 ft to avoid the VFR traffic that mmu tower was not talking to. All of this occurred on a 7 mile final to runway 23; well inside cdw's airspace. The C750 was then able to continue the approach and land on [runway] 23 without further incident. I was observing in the tower as I had just been relieved. This is an on-going safety issue. One filed report noted this very issue of N90 not coordinating with cdw for a visual approach thru their airspace when mmu is on the ILS approach. In my opinion; nothing is going to be done about this until there is an actual mid-air or accident caused by an aircraft avoiding a mid-air and losing control and crashing. N90 seems to be of the opinion that when the ILS approach is in use at mmu; the approach course is protected and VFR aircraft cannot fly thru it. However; the problem occurs when N90 gives an arrival a visual approach and assumes the airspace is still protected and therefore does not need to be coordinated with cdw before flying the arrival thru cdw's airspace and switching the arrival to mmu tower. Numerous reports have been filed and whatever changes were made (having mmu advertise the ILS all the times runway 23 is the active) does not solve the problem because it almost always occurs when the arrival is on a visual approach instead of the ILS. It is not the responsibility of the controllers at mmu tower to make sure the arrivals have been coordinated with cdw tower but every time I have checked; cdw tower was not coordinated with by N90. I can only assume the controllers at N90 don't know or don't think they have to coordinate a visual approach thru cdw's airspace since mmu is on the ILS runway 23 approach. They are dead wrong and one of these days a pilot is going to pay for N90's continued resistance to following the 7110.65 in this situation. As far as a solution; coordinating any approach; other than an ILS approach is mandatory before N90 can switch the arrival to mmu tower. N90 simply has to abide by the 7110.65; no new rule is required. Just make sure all of the controllers at N90 in the ewr sector know this is not optional but mandatory!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MMU Controller described a reported NMAC when traffic on a visual approach to Runway 23 to MMU encountered VFR departure traffic from CDW; the reporter claiming N90 controllers consistently fail to coordinate as required.

Narrative: A C750 was on a visual approach to Runway 23 about 8 miles north of MMU airport and was descending thru 1;700 FT to turn about a 7 mile final. The Local Controller called VFR traffic to the C750 at its 10 o'clock and 2 miles climbing slowly northbound out of 1;300 FT. The VFR traffic was a departure off of CDW airport. MMU was advertising the ILS Approach but the C750 was scratch padded as a visual; per the old LOA with N90 and CDW and MMU Towers. The pilot said they did not see the traffic and then came right back and said he was responding to an RA and climbed to 2;200 FT to avoid the VFR traffic that MMU Tower was not talking to. All of this occurred on a 7 mile final to Runway 23; well inside CDW's airspace. The C750 was then able to continue the approach and land on [Runway] 23 without further incident. I was observing in the Tower as I had just been relieved. This is an on-going safety issue. One filed report noted this very issue of N90 not coordinating with CDW for a visual approach thru their airspace when MMU is on the ILS Approach. In my opinion; nothing is going to be done about this until there is an actual mid-air or accident caused by an aircraft avoiding a mid-air and losing control and crashing. N90 seems to be of the opinion that when the ILS approach is in use at MMU; the approach course is protected and VFR aircraft cannot fly thru it. However; the problem occurs when N90 gives an arrival a visual approach and assumes the airspace is still protected and therefore does not need to be coordinated with CDW before flying the arrival thru CDW's airspace and switching the arrival to MMU Tower. Numerous reports have been filed and whatever changes were made (having MMU advertise the ILS all the times Runway 23 is the active) does not solve the problem because it almost always occurs when the arrival is on a visual approach instead of the ILS. It is not the responsibility of the controllers at MMU Tower to make sure the arrivals have been coordinated with CDW Tower but every time I have checked; CDW Tower was not coordinated with by N90. I can only assume the controllers at N90 don't know or don't think they have to coordinate a visual approach thru CDW's airspace since MMU is on the ILS Runway 23 approach. They are dead wrong and one of these days a pilot is going to pay for N90's continued resistance to following the 7110.65 in this situation. As far as a solution; coordinating any approach; other than an ILS approach is mandatory before N90 can switch the arrival to MMU Tower. N90 simply has to abide by the 7110.65; no new rule is required. Just make sure all of the controllers at N90 in the EWR sector know this is not optional but mandatory!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.