Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
An IAI Gulfstream G200 on the visual approach to Runway 23 called Tower approximately 5 [NM] north of the field at 2;000 FT. Local issued traffic ahead and to the left 2 1/2 miles; N-NW at 1;400. Pilot stated they didn't see that traffic but had traffic below them. G200 climbed up to 2;200 [FT] in response to an RA. Local then noticed a target appear on the RADAR at 1;400 below the G200 northbound. The G200 advised traffic was a C172. No significant event and the G200 landed without incident. MMU was advertising the ILS to Runway 23 and the G200 came over on the visual approach. In this particular instance; N90 coordinated the visual approach but it is unknown if the G200 was pointed out to CDW.  Recommendation; CDW Tower is most likely only putting a statement on their ATIS broadcast that the ILS approach is in use at MMU; but are still clearing VFR for take off and allowing them to fly through the arrival path of MMU traffic with little to no traffic information exchanged. Between N90's sporadic point-outs to CDW; and CDW's lack of traffic issuance for their VFR departures; MMU Tower controllers are repeatedly explaining to jet arrivals why there is VFR traffic in close proximity to them causing an RA to occur. This is an ongoing and dangerous safety issue that needs to be addressed before an aircraft accident occurs. I am recommending that the MMU Manager; the N90 Manager; and the CDW Manager put together a work group to address these issues and come up with some procedures to fix this problem. Additionally; the controllers at MMU are getting discouraged in the reporting process because all of the reports filed on these issues are 'closed' and nothing is being done to actually fix the issue.
After accepting RADAR hand off from N90 on an IAI Gulfstream G200; (6 mi north of MMU on visual approach to Runway 23) N90 controller called on voice coordination line and advised that the G200 did not have the traffic in sight. On first contact with the G200; I immediately issued the only observed traffic ahead of and in proximity to the flight; that being traffic ahead and to the left range 2 1/2 miles N-NW bound indicating 1;400 feet. Pilot did not have that traffic but they did see one below them and were climbing in response to RA. As the G200 climbed; I observed a target emerging just east of the G200's flight track indicating 1;400 feet apparently heading for CDW. I don't recall hearing a CA alert on my equipment. The G200 descended from 2;200 feet continuing the approach and advised that the aircraft causing the event was a C-172. The G200 continued to a normal landing. The ILS approach to Runway 23 was the primary approach in use. We were accepting visual approaches when an operational advantage existed. N90 satisfied their obligation to advise us when visuals were issued in lieu of the ILS either verbally or ARTS scratch pad. It may not be enough to identify the visuals to ONLY Morristown since the area affected in what amounts to an airborne 'hotspot' with a concentration of VFR and IFR traffic in a relatively small bit of airspace. RADAR coverage is not the best there due to RADAR-blocking terrain between the main bang and the subject area. General traffic information just doesn't cut it. I personally avoid that area when flying locally. Should CDW be required to quick look MMU traffic on their RACD? Should N90 be required to point out to CDW all MMU traffic not on the ILS? I would suggest an increased use of Tower generated ARTS tags. Too many controllers subscribe to the 'VFR; they're on their own' mindset. Maybe so; but I never heard of VFR making anyone any softer.
MMU Controller described a TCAS RA event when traffic on a visual approach to MMU conflicted with VFR traffic likely operating in the vicinity of CDW; the reporter suggesting a work group be formed to address the issue.