Narrative:

On apr/sat/02, I was PIC of aircraft X flight. The flight was on an IFR flight plan to fll. We were operating under far part 135. As the flight entered mia approach's airspace, we were descended to 3000 ft MSL (below the mia class B airspace) on a 030 degree heading. We were handed off to approach sector that handles the south arrival into fll. We were then turned to a 090 degree heading and descended to 2000 ft MSL. Traffic (aircraft Y) was issued at 1 O'clock position, 2 mi, at 2500 ft MSL. We reported traffic in sight. The controller then asked us to report fll in sight. I advised that we had fll in sight. We were then advised to turn left to 070 degrees to join the runway 9R final, and cleared visual approach to runway 9R at fll, and contact tower. I checked in with the fll tower. The controller was quick to advise aircraft Z traffic 1 O'clock less than 1 mi. I immediately began and announced that we were making a left turn. We made a 30 degree bank left turn to about a heading of 030 degrees. The fll local controller said that mia advised us (aircraft X) of the traffic. I said that we were advised of a 2500 ft piece of traffic that we reported in sight but was not advised of the same altitude conflicting traffic. I held the 030 degree heading for about 30 seconds. Not wanting to conflict with traffic landing runway 9L at fll, I advised fll local control that I was resuming the final approach. The controller concurred that there was no longer a conflict. I never did see the traffic due to the right wing high during the left evasive turn. We landed runway 9R uneventfully. Upon rollout fll, local control advised me that there would be a separate investigation regarding the near midair collision. I would like to mention that this has not been the only occurrence like this event. It has been a continual problem. I personally feel that the approach controller is just reducing his workload by placing flts below the mia class B airspace. Since the C402 is not TCASII equipped, the controller can place the flight down below the class B and then only separate IFR and VFR traffic on a time-permitting basis, rather than providing separation in class B airspace. I understand see and avoid is the PIC's responsibility. There are many times in this area when there are too many planes to see and call out to make a safe flight for a passenger carrying operation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C402 PLT HAD LESS THAN LEGAL SEPARATION IN MIA CLASS E AIRSPACE. PLT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO OPERATE IN MIA CLASS B AIRSPACE.

Narrative: ON APR/SAT/02, I WAS PIC OF ACFT X FLT. THE FLT WAS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN TO FLL. WE WERE OPERATING UNDER FAR PART 135. AS THE FLT ENTERED MIA APCH'S AIRSPACE, WE WERE DSNDED TO 3000 FT MSL (BELOW THE MIA CLASS B AIRSPACE) ON A 030 DEG HDG. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO APCH SECTOR THAT HANDLES THE S ARR INTO FLL. WE WERE THEN TURNED TO A 090 DEG HDG AND DSNDED TO 2000 FT MSL. TFC (ACFT Y) WAS ISSUED AT 1 O'CLOCK POS, 2 MI, AT 2500 FT MSL. WE RPTED TFC IN SIGHT. THE CTLR THEN ASKED US TO RPT FLL IN SIGHT. I ADVISED THAT WE HAD FLL IN SIGHT. WE WERE THEN ADVISED TO TURN L TO 070 DEGS TO JOIN THE RWY 9R FINAL, AND CLRED VISUAL APCH TO RWY 9R AT FLL, AND CONTACT TWR. I CHKED IN WITH THE FLL TWR. THE CTLR WAS QUICK TO ADVISE ACFT Z TFC 1 O'CLOCK LESS THAN 1 MI. I IMMEDIATELY BEGAN AND ANNOUNCED THAT WE WERE MAKING A L TURN. WE MADE A 30 DEG BANK L TURN TO ABOUT A HDG OF 030 DEGS. THE FLL LCL CTLR SAID THAT MIA ADVISED US (ACFT X) OF THE TFC. I SAID THAT WE WERE ADVISED OF A 2500 FT PIECE OF TFC THAT WE RPTED IN SIGHT BUT WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE SAME ALT CONFLICTING TFC. I HELD THE 030 DEG HDG FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS. NOT WANTING TO CONFLICT WITH TFC LNDG RWY 9L AT FLL, I ADVISED FLL LCL CTL THAT I WAS RESUMING THE FINAL APCH. THE CTLR CONCURRED THAT THERE WAS NO LONGER A CONFLICT. I NEVER DID SEE THE TFC DUE TO THE R WING HIGH DURING THE L EVASIVE TURN. WE LANDED RWY 9R UNEVENTFULLY. UPON ROLLOUT FLL, LCL CTL ADVISED ME THAT THERE WOULD BE A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE NMAC. I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE ONLY OCCURRENCE LIKE THIS EVENT. IT HAS BEEN A CONTINUAL PROB. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THE APCH CTLR IS JUST REDUCING HIS WORKLOAD BY PLACING FLTS BELOW THE MIA CLASS B AIRSPACE. SINCE THE C402 IS NOT TCASII EQUIPPED, THE CTLR CAN PLACE THE FLT DOWN BELOW THE CLASS B AND THEN ONLY SEPARATE IFR AND VFR TFC ON A TIME-PERMITTING BASIS, RATHER THAN PROVIDING SEPARATION IN CLASS B AIRSPACE. I UNDERSTAND SEE AND AVOID IS THE PIC'S RESPONSIBILITY. THERE ARE MANY TIMES IN THIS AREA WHEN THERE ARE TOO MANY PLANES TO SEE AND CALL OUT TO MAKE A SAFE FLT FOR A PAX CARRYING OP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.