When; during VMC; an approach controller elected to vector an inbound CL30 to allow for an unimpeded...

Narrative:

A CL30 was inbound to the airport from the west. Visual approaches were available and anticipated. Tower called to get an IFR release; which I granted on a westbound heading from the airport. I turned the CL30 to a 110 heading to go south of the airport to separate him from the IFR departure. That heading put the flight in proximity to two non-controlled airports southwest of there. There were numerous VFR targets in the vicinity of those two airports and I had to give the CL30 many traffic calls and some avoidance vectors. Nonetheless; they did get a TCAS RA on at least one aircraft and climbed approximately 500 ft. There was no loss of IFR separation with any other aircraft. The pilot also said he got one aircraft in sight right off his right wing at his altitude. While there was no legal loss of separation; the pilot's workload was increased and he may or may not think there was an near midair collision. I have learned from this incident and will personally use other means to separate IFR traffic by avoiding vectors so close to busy VFR airports. I could have climbed them 500 ft to get above all the VFR airport traffic and avoid a possibly dangerous situation; or I could have issued a different heading to the IFR departure traffic to allow the CL30 to proceed directly to his destination and avoid the VFR airports.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: When; during VMC; an Approach Controller elected to vector an inbound CL30 to allow for an unimpeded IFR departure from his destination airport the CL30's resulting flight path impacted traffic at two busy non-controlled airports; including one TCAS RA.

Narrative: A CL30 was inbound to the airport from the west. Visual approaches were available and anticipated. Tower called to get an IFR release; which I granted on a westbound heading from the airport. I turned the CL30 to a 110 heading to go south of the airport to separate him from the IFR departure. That heading put the flight in proximity to two non-controlled airports southwest of there. There were numerous VFR targets in the vicinity of those two airports and I had to give the CL30 many traffic calls and some avoidance vectors. Nonetheless; they did get a TCAS RA on at least one aircraft and climbed approximately 500 FT. There was no loss of IFR separation with any other aircraft. The pilot also said he got one aircraft in sight right off his right wing at his altitude. While there was no legal loss of separation; the pilot's workload was increased and he may or may not think there was an NMAC. I have learned from this incident and will personally use other means to separate IFR traffic by avoiding vectors so close to busy VFR airports. I could have climbed them 500 FT to get above all the VFR airport traffic and avoid a possibly dangerous situation; or I could have issued a different heading to the IFR departure traffic to allow the CL30 to proceed directly to his destination and avoid the VFR airports.

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.

Attributes
ACN	983093
Time
Date	201112
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.TRACON
State Reference	US
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Challenger 300
Flight Phase	Cruise
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	Conflict Airborne Conflict

When; during VMC; an approach controller elected to vector an inbound CL30 to allow for an unimpeded IFR departure from his destination airport the CL30's resulting flight path impacted traffic at two busy non-controlled airports; including one TCAS RA.