Narrative:

While on vectors for a visual approach to runway 23 at cak, we received and responded to a TCASII RA. While on initial descent, we briefed an ILS runway 23 approach (ATIS was reporting 3000 ft overcast with 8 mi visibility and had advertised the ILS to runway 23). In the approach environment, akron approach gave us a vector which became a modified downwind (inside eggii -- the FAF for ILS runway 23). We broke out at approximately 4000 ft MSL and after being queried by ATC bout whether or not we had visual contact with the airport, my first officer reported the field in sight. At this point, we were level at 3000 ft MSL. The controller cleared us for a visual approach to runway 23 and pointed out traffic at our 10 O'clock position (the runway was to our right). I saw the king air coming in our direction at our altitude and my first officer reported the traffic in sight. I disconnected the autoplt and began a descent just as we received a 'monitor vertical speed' RA. During the maneuver, we received 'sink rae' GPWS (we were not fully configured for landing). The king air had begun a climb and passed within 1/2 mi horizontal and perhaps 200 ft above. We continued the approach and landed without incident. All these events (excluding the landing) occurred within perhaps 10-20 seconds. Corrective action: I believe the cause of this event was poor vectoring on behalf of the controller, and the decision to use visual approachs rather than ILS's. More often than not, controllers in our NAS tend to recommend (pressure) pilots to accept visual approachs even in marginal WX. Oftentimes pilots can't make a thorough assessment of the WX until they are below the cloud layer (ATIS is all too often old). In the future, I will be more vigilant for this. We can always 'call the field' during an approach, when an ILS was already placed us in a safe position to land and separation is assured.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT BTWN 2 ARRIVING ACFT FOR RWY 23 VISUAL APCH AT CAK, OH.

Narrative: WHILE ON VECTORS FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 23 AT CAK, WE RECEIVED AND RESPONDED TO A TCASII RA. WHILE ON INITIAL DSCNT, WE BRIEFED AN ILS RWY 23 APCH (ATIS WAS RPTING 3000 FT OVCST WITH 8 MI VISIBILITY AND HAD ADVERTISED THE ILS TO RWY 23). IN THE APCH ENVIRONMENT, AKRON APCH GAVE US A VECTOR WHICH BECAME A MODIFIED DOWNWIND (INSIDE EGGII -- THE FAF FOR ILS RWY 23). WE BROKE OUT AT APPROX 4000 FT MSL AND AFTER BEING QUERIED BY ATC BOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ARPT, MY FO RPTED THE FIELD IN SIGHT. AT THIS POINT, WE WERE LEVEL AT 3000 FT MSL. THE CTLR CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 23 AND POINTED OUT TFC AT OUR 10 O'CLOCK POS (THE RWY WAS TO OUR R). I SAW THE KING AIR COMING IN OUR DIRECTION AT OUR ALT AND MY FO RPTED THE TFC IN SIGHT. I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND BEGAN A DSCNT JUST AS WE RECEIVED A 'MONITOR VERT SPD' RA. DURING THE MANEUVER, WE RECEIVED 'SINK RAE' GPWS (WE WERE NOT FULLY CONFIGURED FOR LNDG). THE KING AIR HAD BEGUN A CLB AND PASSED WITHIN 1/2 MI HORIZ AND PERHAPS 200 FT ABOVE. WE CONTINUED THE APCH AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. ALL THESE EVENTS (EXCLUDING THE LNDG) OCCURRED WITHIN PERHAPS 10-20 SECONDS. CORRECTIVE ACTION: I BELIEVE THE CAUSE OF THIS EVENT WAS POOR VECTORING ON BEHALF OF THE CTLR, AND THE DECISION TO USE VISUAL APCHS RATHER THAN ILS'S. MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, CTLRS IN OUR NAS TEND TO RECOMMEND (PRESSURE) PLTS TO ACCEPT VISUAL APCHS EVEN IN MARGINAL WX. OFTENTIMES PLTS CAN'T MAKE A THOROUGH ASSESSMENT OF THE WX UNTIL THEY ARE BELOW THE CLOUD LAYER (ATIS IS ALL TOO OFTEN OLD). IN THE FUTURE, I WILL BE MORE VIGILANT FOR THIS. WE CAN ALWAYS 'CALL THE FIELD' DURING AN APCH, WHEN AN ILS WAS ALREADY PLACED US IN A SAFE POS TO LAND AND SEPARATION IS ASSURED.

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.