Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Situational Awareness; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Human Factors; Procedure
We were given a late hand off by the previous controller to Salt Lake Approach control controlling the LEEHY arrival. On check in Approach Control contacted us first and it was apparent that he was task saturated and that the sector was extremely busy. He told us he needed to give us a 'box pattern for spacing' and gave us a heading westbound over Utah Lake. We complied with this heading and the instruction to descend to 14;000 ft. and reduce speed to 190 KIAS. We were then given another heading turning us to our left and back towards the approach course. It was at this time that we got a traffic advisory of an aircraft that was in the direction we were now turning towards with the latest vector from ATC. The aircraft was climbing towards us as we were descending and turning as per the ATC instructions. Almost simultaneously ATC realized the situation and gave us a traffic alert at the same time the aircraft gave us an RA to descend. The Captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and began to comply with the instruction to descend. At this time I was looking outside doing what I could to see and avoid the traffic. At this point we were in a layer of smoke and visibility was low. I was able to spot the traffic as the aircraft was passing above us. It was very close; only a few hundred feet. It is hard to judge distance without anything to base the measurement on. Just prior to me seeing the traffic the TCAS system made the annunciation to monitor vertical speed and as the aircraft was passing off our right we got clear of conflict. It took us a minute to get back with the controller and he gave us a new altitude and heading to join the final approach course into Salt Lake. We made an uneventful landing on Runway 35 in Salt Lake and once safely parked contacted Company to figure out next steps. I believe the cause of this event mostly had to do with improper instructions from ATC. I obviously did not have the big picture of the traffic environment in that sector like the controller did. However I could tell he was task saturated and had more aircraft to control than he could safely handle. We were not aware of any potential conflict until beginning the turn to the heading the controller gave us which put us in conflict with the other aircraft. In the future I will attempt to be even more vigilant at situational awareness. I believe this event has only renewed my sense of importance on this matter. Furthermore I would suggest that the controller of this sector not be controlling more than one sector as it seemed he was. I believe that the controllers task saturation was potentially the largest contributing factor in the event. I am glad that we responded so promptly to the resolution advisory and were able to resolve the conflict. The training we had at Company prepared us well for this situation and I am glad that I have practiced it many times in training.
Air Carrier Flight Crew reported NMAC while being vectored by ATC. Flight Crew took evasive action to avoid conflict.