Narrative:

Upon contact with approach; we advised that we had the airport in sight. After several vectors the crew received a clearance; 'descend to 12;000 and cleared visual approach'. The aircraft was located near the VOR; so the crew took the responsibility of slowing the turn towards the runway; maintaining a ground track away from high terrain and descending for a stabilized configuration for a visual approach. A gulfstream preceded us on the visual and traffic separation looked to be about 7 and 1 1/2 miles. We were transferred to tower where we heard a VFR single engine aircraft ask for an immediate departure with an offer to make an early turn to a way point east of the extended center line. For some strange reason; the tower asked us to align ourselves with the extended center line; despite being well positioned away from high terrain and outside of the proximity of traffic he had just cleared to depart. We initially had visual contact with the aircraft; it appeared to be a cessna 210; but was lost in the background of snow on the ground and then we saw it briefly again; before receiving a resolution advisory. We complied with the resolution advisory and were able to maintain smooth control inputs and no real change in airspeed; and no configuration change. We were able to retrieve the extended glide path with ease and the aircraft landed without incident. Upon landing we asked to speak to the tower via telephone. We asked the controller why we had been cleared for a visual approach where we had accepted our own terrain and traffic separation and were subsequently given tower instructions that placed us in conflict with a departing aircraft. The controller seemed upset that we had received a resolution advisory and had told him via telephone on the recording. He informed us that it would have to be investigated. He implied that if we had the aircraft in sight that we did not have to comply with the resolution advisory. I told him that this is not correct. I have several concerns with event of this day; 1. When cleared for a visual approach the crew is given the responsibility of tracking in a stabilized manner of flight to the active runway; while maintaining obstruction clearance and traffic separation. The tower controller's instructions effectively canceled the visual approach while also abrogating any responsibility for traffic separation. 2. Why was a VFR aircraft that had not complied with their own promise of flying east of the extended center line allowed to take off with two turbo-jet aircraft cleared for an approach when there was virtually no other traffic in the area? 3. How does a controller believe that he has the authority to tell two experienced crew members how and when to fly a TCAS resolution advisory?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Corporate jet cleared for a Visual Approach in mountainous terrain and maneuvering for final was given what seemed to be contradictory instructions when transferred to the Tower; the reporter posing a number of questions regarding ATC's handling.

Narrative: Upon contact with Approach; we advised that we had the airport in sight. After several vectors the crew received a clearance; 'Descend to 12;000 and cleared visual approach'. The aircraft was located near the VOR; so the crew took the responsibility of slowing the turn towards the runway; maintaining a ground track away from high terrain and descending for a stabilized configuration for a visual approach. A Gulfstream preceded us on the visual and traffic separation looked to be about 7 and 1 1/2 miles. We were transferred to Tower where we heard a VFR single engine aircraft ask for an immediate departure with an offer to make an early turn to a way point east of the extended center line. For some strange reason; the Tower asked us to align ourselves with the extended center line; despite being well positioned away from high terrain and outside of the proximity of traffic he had just cleared to depart. We initially had visual contact with the aircraft; it appeared to be a Cessna 210; but was lost in the background of snow on the ground and then we saw it briefly again; before receiving a Resolution Advisory. We complied with the Resolution Advisory and were able to maintain smooth control inputs and no real change in airspeed; and no configuration change. We were able to retrieve the extended glide path with ease and the aircraft landed without incident. Upon landing we asked to speak to the Tower via telephone. We asked the Controller why we had been cleared for a Visual Approach where we had accepted our own terrain and traffic separation and were subsequently given Tower instructions that placed us in conflict with a departing aircraft. The Controller seemed upset that we had received a Resolution Advisory and had told him via telephone on the recording. He informed us that it would have to be investigated. He implied that if we had the aircraft in sight that we did not have to comply with the Resolution Advisory. I told him that this is not correct. I have several concerns with event of this day; 1. When cleared for a Visual Approach the crew is given the responsibility of tracking in a stabilized manner of flight to the active runway; while maintaining obstruction clearance and traffic separation. The Tower Controller's instructions effectively canceled the visual approach while also abrogating any responsibility for traffic separation. 2. Why was a VFR aircraft that had not complied with their own promise of flying east of the extended center line allowed to take off with two turbo-jet aircraft cleared for an approach when there was virtually no other traffic in the area? 3. How does a Controller believe that he has the authority to tell two experienced crew members how and when to fly a TCAS resolution advisory?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.