EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Flight Crew Commercial
Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
This could probably be considered two separate events with separate reports; however I am combining them into one because I believe the first event (Tower initiated runway incursion causing low level go-around) was a contributing factor in the second event (Loss of horizontal and vertical separation and TCAS RA). During the final approach to Runway 35 (visual backed up by RNAV 35) at Pensacola International the Tower informed us that he was clearing an aircraft to depart prior to our arrival. At the time we were inside the final approach fix configured for landing with flaps 45. In my estimation we were no more than 20 seconds from touchdown at the time he cleared the other aircraft to taxi onto the runway and take off. We informed the Tower that there was not sufficient separation and the Tower Controller instructed us to go-around. The published missed approach calls for a straight ahead climb to 2;700 feet. Since we were overtaking the aircraft that had just departed and the departed aircraft was climbing up through our altitude I judged that the published missed would lead to unacceptable separation and requested a vector and climbout instructions from the Tower. The Tower issued a turn to the east and a climb to 2;000 feet and handed us off to Approach. Once with Approach; the Controller informed us that we had a VFR Cessna at our altitude and 12:00. I was the pilot monitoring and had just finished cleaning up the aircraft from the go-around. As soon as the Controller called the traffic I looked outside and then at the TCAS Display. The TCAS was set on the 6 mile scale and the traffic target was well inside the inner ring. I looked back outside and saw the Cessna traffic. The aircraft was at 12:00 at 2;000 feet crossing our flight path from right to left. The aircraft was close enough that I could distinguish individual characters on the tail number. In my estimation we were no further than 200 to 250 feet from the VFR Cessna. TCAS issued a climbing RA and instructed no less than a 3;000 feet/minute climb out along with a 'Maintain vertical speed' aural command once the 3;000+ FPM climb was established. The pilot flying disconnected the autopilot and complied with the RA immediately. After clearing traffic I informed the Approach Controller that we had received a TCAS RA and had deviated from the assigned altitude of 2;000 feet. Neither the VFR Cessna nor I had ever called traffic in sight prior to the TCAS alert and neither aircraft had been given a 'maintain visual separation' command. In my estimation the elapsed time between Approach calling out the VFR traffic and the TCAS RA was approximately 15-20 seconds. The Approach Controller gave us several more vectors to set up for approach and we were then handed off to Tower for another visual approach to Runway 35. We made a normal landing and taxied the aircraft and parked at the gate as normal.The errors in this instance were made by both the Tower Controller and the Approach Controller causing two instances of loss of separation. One loss of separation occurred during the approach and landing phase when the Tower Controller cleared another aircraft to take off while we were on short final. This caused a rejected landing and unacceptable separation during the go-around phase due to the straight out path of our aircraft and of the departing aircraft. During the go-around before I requested a turn-out; distance was closing between our aircraft and the departing aircraft both vertically and horizontally. An additional threat occurred when the Tower issued an altitude and heading that put us in conflict with a VFR aircraft that was in contact with the Approach Controller at the time. The second error was made by the Approach Controller when he chose to call out traffic visually instead of issuing an immediate altitude or heading change to either the VFR Cessna or to us. In my opinion; the time the Approach Controller spent trying to establish visual separation by calling traffic to us; and to the VFR Cessna was wasted time which lead to the undesired aircraft state of a collision course with another aircraft and loss of separation which resulted in a TCAS RA. I also fault the Tower Controller in contribution to the post go-around undesired aircraft state because the heading and altitude he issued put us in conflict with traffic and the Approach Controller had minimal time to mitigate the conflict once we were handed off. This was caused by multiple ATC errors. Both I and the pilot flying performed our duties as trained and as required. In my opinion; additional training is required for both the PNS Tower and Approach controllers who were on duty at the time.
An EMB-145 First Officer on final approach ascribed responsibility for a ground conflict with departing traffic and a subsequent NMAC with a Cessna transiting the area to substandard handling by; initially; the Local Controller and; in the second instance; to Departure Control for failing to provide altitude separation with VFR traffic.