Narrative:

We had commenced the VOR-DME a approach into teb, and had leveled off at 2500 ft approaching the next step-down fix. We were in and out of ragged cloud bases prior to the IAF, and were just barely below the bases at 2500 ft. We later determined that we were just below newark's class B airspace at this point. Just a few seconds after leveling off, the PIC (right seat PNF) was heads-down setting the next step down altitude on the alerter. At this point, with the autoplt engaged, I looked outside and was startled to see a C152 at our altitude crossing r-l. I instinctively started an evasive maneuver, but then determined that there was no collision hazard and continued the approach. The PIC immediately asked teb tower if they showed a radar target near us at our altitude, and advised teb that we had just had a near-miss. Teb tower replied that they did not show any traffic near us, but about 10 seconds later, came back and said that they had been advised that TRACON showed a primary target very near us, 'squawking standby,' and that TRACON would track the airplane to its point of landing. The PIC then advised the tower that it was a blue and white cessna 152. We landed without further incident. Our passenger had seen the airplane and were very concerned about the close call. I don't believe that there's much more we could have done to avoid this incident. We were right on the published approach profile, in radar contact, and with appropriate approach clearance from new york approach. I might only suggest that emerging from cloud bases into VFR conditions in or near congested terminal airspace should cause IFR pilots to be extra vigilant for traffic. It might be prudent to ensure that at least 1 pilot is 'outside' or heads-up whenever possible in that situation. It seems clear that the fault with this incident lies primarily with the C152 pilot. The inescapable conclusion is that the C152 pilot was in violation of no less than 2 and probably 3 far's at the time, by not having his transponder on underneath class B airspace, and by being less than 500 ft below a reported (and observed) ceiling. Furthermore, the VOR/DME-a approach path happens to be in the essex county class D airspace, which goes up to 2700 ft. While it's possible that the C152 was in radio contact with essex county tower, it's unlikely, because the traffic would have been kept clear of the VOR/DME approach path. Parts of this VOR/DME approach transitions the underlying class east airspace, which has no communications requirements for VFR aircraft. That seems like an inherent safety issue, when the instrument approach is so close to such a busy terminal area. The regulatory lines-of-defense in place to protect aircraft on the approach -- including transponder and cloud-clearance requirements for non participating VFR aircraft -- failed. Having a communications requirement here would have provided an additional layer of protection. For all but a small southeast corner of the essex county class D airspace, there is a 300 ft gap between the top of the class D and the bottom of the overlying class B airspace. That could be a temptation for a VFR pilot wanting to fly that route who doesn't feel like talking to anyone. I would like to see that 300 ft gap either widened or removed altogether. In any case, the teb VOR/DME approach should reside entirely in more highly controled airspace, either class D or class B.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C560 CONFLICTS WITH A C152 WHILE ON VOR DME APCH TO TEB.

Narrative: WE HAD COMMENCED THE VOR-DME A APCH INTO TEB, AND HAD LEVELED OFF AT 2500 FT APCHING THE NEXT STEP-DOWN FIX. WE WERE IN AND OUT OF RAGGED CLOUD BASES PRIOR TO THE IAF, AND WERE JUST BARELY BELOW THE BASES AT 2500 FT. WE LATER DETERMINED THAT WE WERE JUST BELOW NEWARK'S CLASS B AIRSPACE AT THIS POINT. JUST A FEW SECONDS AFTER LEVELING OFF, THE PIC (R SEAT PNF) WAS HEADS-DOWN SETTING THE NEXT STEP DOWN ALT ON THE ALERTER. AT THIS POINT, WITH THE AUTOPLT ENGAGED, I LOOKED OUTSIDE AND WAS STARTLED TO SEE A C152 AT OUR ALT XING R-L. I INSTINCTIVELY STARTED AN EVASIVE MANEUVER, BUT THEN DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO COLLISION HAZARD AND CONTINUED THE APCH. THE PIC IMMEDIATELY ASKED TEB TWR IF THEY SHOWED A RADAR TARGET NEAR US AT OUR ALT, AND ADVISED TEB THAT WE HAD JUST HAD A NEAR-MISS. TEB TWR REPLIED THAT THEY DID NOT SHOW ANY TFC NEAR US, BUT ABOUT 10 SECONDS LATER, CAME BACK AND SAID THAT THEY HAD BEEN ADVISED THAT TRACON SHOWED A PRIMARY TARGET VERY NEAR US, 'SQUAWKING STANDBY,' AND THAT TRACON WOULD TRACK THE AIRPLANE TO ITS POINT OF LNDG. THE PIC THEN ADVISED THE TWR THAT IT WAS A BLUE AND WHITE CESSNA 152. WE LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. OUR PAX HAD SEEN THE AIRPLANE AND WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CLOSE CALL. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S MUCH MORE WE COULD HAVE DONE TO AVOID THIS INCIDENT. WE WERE RIGHT ON THE PUBLISHED APCH PROFILE, IN RADAR CONTACT, AND WITH APPROPRIATE APCH CLRNC FROM NEW YORK APCH. I MIGHT ONLY SUGGEST THAT EMERGING FROM CLOUD BASES INTO VFR CONDITIONS IN OR NEAR CONGESTED TERMINAL AIRSPACE SHOULD CAUSE IFR PLTS TO BE EXTRA VIGILANT FOR TFC. IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO ENSURE THAT AT LEAST 1 PLT IS 'OUTSIDE' OR HEADS-UP WHENEVER POSSIBLE IN THAT SIT. IT SEEMS CLR THAT THE FAULT WITH THIS INCIDENT LIES PRIMARILY WITH THE C152 PLT. THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE C152 PLT WAS IN VIOLATION OF NO LESS THAN 2 AND PROBABLY 3 FAR'S AT THE TIME, BY NOT HAVING HIS XPONDER ON UNDERNEATH CLASS B AIRSPACE, AND BY BEING LESS THAN 500 FT BELOW A RPTED (AND OBSERVED) CEILING. FURTHERMORE, THE VOR/DME-A APCH PATH HAPPENS TO BE IN THE ESSEX COUNTY CLASS D AIRSPACE, WHICH GOES UP TO 2700 FT. WHILE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE C152 WAS IN RADIO CONTACT WITH ESSEX COUNTY TWR, IT'S UNLIKELY, BECAUSE THE TFC WOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT CLR OF THE VOR/DME APCH PATH. PARTS OF THIS VOR/DME APCH TRANSITIONS THE UNDERLYING CLASS E AIRSPACE, WHICH HAS NO COMS REQUIREMENTS FOR VFR ACFT. THAT SEEMS LIKE AN INHERENT SAFETY ISSUE, WHEN THE INST APCH IS SO CLOSE TO SUCH A BUSY TERMINAL AREA. THE REGULATORY LINES-OF-DEFENSE IN PLACE TO PROTECT ACFT ON THE APCH -- INCLUDING XPONDER AND CLOUD-CLRNC REQUIREMENTS FOR NON PARTICIPATING VFR ACFT -- FAILED. HAVING A COMS REQUIREMENT HERE WOULD HAVE PROVIDED AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF PROTECTION. FOR ALL BUT A SMALL SE CORNER OF THE ESSEX COUNTY CLASS D AIRSPACE, THERE IS A 300 FT GAP BTWN THE TOP OF THE CLASS D AND THE BOTTOM OF THE OVERLYING CLASS B AIRSPACE. THAT COULD BE A TEMPTATION FOR A VFR PLT WANTING TO FLY THAT RTE WHO DOESN'T FEEL LIKE TALKING TO ANYONE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT 300 FT GAP EITHER WIDENED OR REMOVED ALTOGETHER. IN ANY CASE, THE TEB VOR/DME APCH SHOULD RESIDE ENTIRELY IN MORE HIGHLY CTLED AIRSPACE, EITHER CLASS D OR CLASS B.

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.