Narrative:

A C206 [was] on a surveillance mission operating 5 miles east of mia; one mile north of the runway 26R final. The C206 was at 2;000; VFR; but weather restricted to a different altitude (thick haze). When taking the position I inquired of the controller being relieved as to what separation was being applied to the C206. His answer was visual. This was a VFR in class B requiring 1 1/2 miles or 500 ft or visual. My first arrival went by and I called the traffic to the C206. His reply was on TCAS and he turned north away from the arrival. The C206 was orbiting so there was no assurance that he could stay turned away from final.the next two arrivals; traffic was exchanged but the C206 never saw any of them. The arrivals did not see the C206. I asked the supervisor to discontinue the C206 operation and he declined to permit it (operational necessity). I handed the C206 off to the tower so they could provide 'visual' separation on any subsequent arrivals. I cannot verify the C206s actual course on the two subsequent arrivals so cannot say that separation was lost; but the situation I was placed in was unsafe and I was certain I could not ensure class B separation. I feel that the tower controller was placed in jeopardy due to the fact that if an arrival less than two miles form the traffic could not see it; there was no way the tower could see the cessna at 5 miles. Decline to allow aerial surveillance operations that close to final; or discontinue use of the runway and institute flow control to the airport due to reduced arrival rate.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MIA TRACON Controller reported that a Cessna on a law enforcement mission one mile north of the final approach course five miles from the airport created an unsafe situation.

Narrative: A C206 [was] on a surveillance mission operating 5 miles east of MIA; one mile north of the Runway 26R final. The C206 was at 2;000; VFR; but weather restricted to a different altitude (thick haze). When taking the position I inquired of the controller being relieved as to what separation was being applied to the C206. His answer was visual. This was a VFR in Class B requiring 1 1/2 miles or 500 FT or visual. My first arrival went by and I called the traffic to the C206. His reply was on TCAS and he turned north away from the arrival. The C206 was orbiting so there was no assurance that he could stay turned away from final.The next two arrivals; traffic was exchanged but the C206 never saw any of them. The arrivals did not see the C206. I asked the supervisor to discontinue the C206 operation and he declined to permit it (operational necessity). I handed the C206 off to the Tower so they could provide 'visual' separation on any subsequent arrivals. I cannot verify the C206s actual course on the two subsequent arrivals so cannot say that separation was lost; but the situation I was placed in was unsafe and I was certain I could not ensure Class B separation. I feel that the Tower Controller was placed in jeopardy due to the fact that if an arrival less than two miles form the traffic could not see it; there was no way the Tower could see the Cessna at 5 miles. Decline to allow aerial surveillance operations that close to final; or discontinue use of the runway and institute Flow control to the airport due to reduced arrival rate.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.