Narrative:

While performing duties as pilot flying (PF); flight was being vectored by eglin approach for a visual approach to runway 19 at vps (fort walton beach; florida). Eglin approach instructed our flight to descend to 6000 ft MSL in the vicinity of citey intersection on the ILS west 19 approach near duke field at the eglin air force base (approximately 10 NM north of vps). As the flight descended thru 6600-6700 ft MSL; eglin approach instructed the flight to climb back to 7000 ft MSL. The aircraft leveled off at 6200 ft MSL before resuming climb back up to 7000 ft MSL. While climbing back up to 7000 ft MSL; the flight received a 'TA' alert from the TCAS on a [military fighter jet] that was closing in fast on our flight at 6000 ft MSL. ATC then notified the flight of the traffic alert on the [fighter] that was quickly closing in on this flight and came within 1-2 NM horizontally and 200 ft vertically just as the TCAS TA alert sounded. As the [fighter] passed the flight; the TCAS gave the 'clear of conflict' aural message. After the [fighter] cleared; the flight was then cleared to descend for the visual approach to runway 19 at vps. Flight landed safely at vps with no further incident. Flight crew contacted the eglin air force base air traffic supervisor to inquire about this event upon completion of flight duties at the gate. Per the air traffic supervisor he was supervising and training a new controller and observed this event. The supervisor noted that the [fighter] was operating under VFR flight rules and was on a practice 'high' ILS approach to runway 36 at duke field which is north of vps. ATC instructed the [fighter] to descend in VFR conditions for his approach to 3000 ft MSL. However; the [fighter] did not descend per ATC instructions. It should be also noted that the airspace around fort walton beach; fl and at eglin air force base is controlled by the us air force and is 'restricted' airspace for military operations. Flight leveled off the aircraft and climbed back to 7000 after ATC issued a climb clearance rather late. The rate of closure between the flight and the [fighter jet] was so fast that by the time the TCAS TA alert sounded; the [fighter] had passed and the conflict was clear in less than 3-5 seconds. The only action taken was to climb back to 7000 ft MSL but as soon as the [fighter] passed; ATC issued a visual approach clearance. After talking with the eglin air force base air traffic supervisor on duty; the supervisor acknowledged that he was training a new controller that was handling the flight and the combination of the [fighter] not descending fast enough and controller training were the main factors in the deviation and confusion of ATC instructions. The supervisor acknowledged that this event was the result of high controller workload and training and that ATC should have acted much sooner to avoid this event. The supervisor also noted that the flight crew for this flight did nothing wrong and this was entirely an ATC [issue]. The supervisor was apologetic and even offered to have the flight crew call back later with any other questions in regards to this event.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-200 flight crew reported an airborne conflict with a VFR fighter jet in the vicinity of EGI.

Narrative: While performing duties as Pilot Flying (PF); flight was being vectored by Eglin Approach for a Visual Approach to Runway 19 at VPS (Fort Walton Beach; Florida). Eglin Approach instructed our flight to descend to 6000 ft MSL in the vicinity of CITEY intersection on the ILS W 19 Approach near Duke Field at the Eglin Air Force Base (approximately 10 NM NORTH of VPS). As the flight descended thru 6600-6700 ft MSL; Eglin Approach instructed the flight to climb back to 7000 ft MSL. The aircraft leveled off at 6200 ft MSL before resuming climb back up to 7000 ft MSL. While climbing back up to 7000 ft MSL; the flight received a 'TA' alert from the TCAS on a [military fighter jet] that was closing in fast on our flight at 6000 ft MSL. ATC then notified the flight of the traffic alert on the [fighter] that was quickly closing in on this flight and came within 1-2 NM horizontally and 200 ft vertically just as the TCAS TA alert sounded. As the [fighter] passed the flight; the TCAS gave the 'Clear of Conflict' aural message. After the [fighter] cleared; the flight was then cleared to descend for the visual approach to Runway 19 at VPS. Flight landed safely at VPS with no further incident. Flight crew contacted the Eglin Air Force Base Air Traffic Supervisor to inquire about this event upon completion of flight duties at the gate. Per the Air Traffic Supervisor he was supervising and training a new Controller and observed this event. The Supervisor noted that the [fighter] was operating under VFR flight rules and was on a practice 'High' ILS Approach to Runway 36 at Duke Field which is north of VPS. ATC instructed the [fighter] to descend in VFR conditions for his approach to 3000 ft MSL. However; the [fighter] did not descend per ATC instructions. It should be also noted that the airspace around Fort Walton Beach; FL and at Eglin Air Force Base is controlled by the US Air Force and is 'Restricted' airspace for military operations. Flight leveled off the aircraft and climbed back to 7000 after ATC issued a climb clearance rather late. The rate of closure between the flight and the [fighter jet] was so fast that by the time the TCAS TA alert sounded; the [fighter] had passed and the conflict was clear in less than 3-5 seconds. The only action taken was to climb back to 7000 ft MSL but as soon as the [fighter] passed; ATC issued a Visual Approach clearance. After talking with the Eglin Air Force Base Air Traffic Supervisor on duty; the Supervisor acknowledged that he was training a new controller that was handling the flight and the combination of the [fighter] not descending fast enough and controller training were the main factors in the deviation and confusion of ATC instructions. The Supervisor acknowledged that this event was the result of high controller workload and training and that ATC should have acted much sooner to avoid this event. The Supervisor also noted that the flight crew for this flight did nothing wrong and this was entirely an ATC [issue]. The Supervisor was apologetic and even offered to have the flight crew call back later with any other questions in regards to this event.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.