Narrative:

An iai gulfstream G200 on the visual approach to runway 23 called tower approximately 5 [NM] north of the field at 2;000 ft. Local issued traffic ahead and to the left 2 1/2 miles; n-nw at 1;400. Pilot stated they didn't see that traffic but had traffic below them. G200 climbed up to 2;200 [ft] in response to an RA. Local then noticed a target appear on the radar at 1;400 below the G200 northbound. The G200 advised traffic was a C172. No significant event and the G200 landed without incident. Mmu was advertising the ILS to runway 23 and the G200 came over on the visual approach. In this particular instance; N90 coordinated the visual approach but it is unknown if the G200 was pointed out to cdw. Recommendation; cdw tower is most likely only putting a statement on their ATIS broadcast that the ILS approach is in use at mmu; but are still clearing VFR for take off and allowing them to fly through the arrival path of mmu traffic with little to no traffic information exchanged. Between N90's sporadic point-outs to cdw; and cdw's lack of traffic issuance for their VFR departures; mmu tower controllers are repeatedly explaining to jet arrivals why there is VFR traffic in close proximity to them causing an RA to occur. This is an ongoing and dangerous safety issue that needs to be addressed before an aircraft accident occurs. I am recommending that the mmu manager; the N90 manager; and the cdw manager put together a work group to address these issues and come up with some procedures to fix this problem. Additionally; the controllers at mmu are getting discouraged in the reporting process because all of the reports filed on these issues are 'closed' and nothing is being done to actually fix the issue.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MMU Controller described a TCAS RA event when traffic on a visual approach to MMU conflicted with VFR traffic likely operating in the vicinity of CDW; the reporter suggesting a work group be formed to address the issue.

Narrative: An IAI Gulfstream G200 on the visual approach to Runway 23 called Tower approximately 5 [NM] north of the field at 2;000 FT. Local issued traffic ahead and to the left 2 1/2 miles; N-NW at 1;400. Pilot stated they didn't see that traffic but had traffic below them. G200 climbed up to 2;200 [FT] in response to an RA. Local then noticed a target appear on the RADAR at 1;400 below the G200 northbound. The G200 advised traffic was a C172. No significant event and the G200 landed without incident. MMU was advertising the ILS to Runway 23 and the G200 came over on the visual approach. In this particular instance; N90 coordinated the visual approach but it is unknown if the G200 was pointed out to CDW. Recommendation; CDW Tower is most likely only putting a statement on their ATIS broadcast that the ILS approach is in use at MMU; but are still clearing VFR for take off and allowing them to fly through the arrival path of MMU traffic with little to no traffic information exchanged. Between N90's sporadic point-outs to CDW; and CDW's lack of traffic issuance for their VFR departures; MMU Tower controllers are repeatedly explaining to jet arrivals why there is VFR traffic in close proximity to them causing an RA to occur. This is an ongoing and dangerous safety issue that needs to be addressed before an aircraft accident occurs. I am recommending that the MMU Manager; the N90 Manager; and the CDW Manager put together a work group to address these issues and come up with some procedures to fix this problem. Additionally; the controllers at MMU are getting discouraged in the reporting process because all of the reports filed on these issues are 'closed' and nothing is being done to actually fix the issue.

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.