Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
It started when we flew into the Redmond area and we were handed over to a new Controller. The Controller left us high and asked for a 'runway in sight' call 25 nm out. When we couldn't see the airport due to haze; we received a vector towards the DSD VOR and descent to 6;000 feet. At this time; a GA airplane was in the holding pattern over DSD at 6;500 feet. I was about to question ATC; when Controller changed the descend-to altitude to 7;000 feet.Once the field was in sight; Controller cleared us for the visual; leaving us high and too close in to make the approach. We were approved to maneuver for the descent for the visual.While on the visual approach into RDM; a small single engine GA airplane crossed KICBY at 5;500 feet; while we were approaching KICBY at about 6;200 feet and descending. This resulted in an RA. We complied with the RA; then followed the missed approach procedure after the RA was cleared.ATC failed to be proactive about this traffic; and had left us high and close-in on the visual; vectoring us towards traffic. The traffic alert at KICBY was caused by an aircraft that was in contact with ATC and had reported us in sight. This aircraft continued to fly into the final approach course (towards us) and ATC did not take any action to move us or them around.After the missed approach; we received a vector to the west. At this time; the [aircraft] behind us had to go-around as well (ATC cancelled their approach clearance for no apparent reason). Being busy with [aircraft]; it seemed that ATC had forgotten about us; as we were flying towards the mountains at a low altitude. I prompted ATC to turn us inbound again.After landing; taxiing in; we noticed a [turboprop] behind [aircraft] on final aborting the approach. After they landed; the crew expressed that they had received an RA as well. Between the 3 crews; we were very unsatisfied with ATC's performance and regard to safety.A few days ago; ATC was performing below standard in this area as well. Perhaps a lot of new controllers are being trained here? It has been challenging to operate in the Redmond area with these controllers.Please talk to Seattle Approach.
We were radar vectored into RDM behind two other aircraft for Runway 5. Because we had the preceding aircraft in sight; we were cleared by Seattle Center for the visual approach. However; our position for the approach was a bit too high and close to the preceding aircraft. We slowed and lowered our flaps and gear and started making S-turns to mitigate our high position. As we approached the airport; it became evident that spacing and altitude just weren't going to result in a stabilized approach with our initial efforts. Due to a TCAS target a few miles to the right of us; we requested a 180 degree turn to the left to help with spacing and altitude. Tower granted this request; but at the same time we were given a DESCEND TCAS RA due to that same target off to the right. The PF did an excellent job complying with the TCAS advisory; no limits were exceeded; and we completed the 180 degree turn; resulting in a stabilized approach. The position of the TCAS target was on the extended centerline for the approach corridor. According to the PF; it appeared to be a small aircraft doing air work. I personally did not catch whether they were in contact with Seattle Center; but another company aircraft ahead of us claims that the small aircraft was. On the ground; RDM Tower asked if the RA was due to a helicopter also doing training in the area. We never noticed a helicopter; nor did our TCAS pick up more than one target.This is a tough situation to make recommendations for. The visual approach for Runway 5 is situated between the airport and three tall mountains; making for a tight approach corridor. This is further complicated when multiple aircraft such as airliners; general aviation; and helicopters are all sharing this same airspace. From the controllers tone; it sounded like the situation was a bit overwhelming due to the congestion and coordination of so many aircraft in such a tight space. Personally; I wouldn't have done better if I were in their seat. My best recommendation would be at looking into the way the airspace and approaches are coordinated into Redmond; especially for that runway and especially for the vastly increased amount of traffic that has been flying into that airport in recent years.
Air carrier pilots of separate aircraft reported a loss of separation on approach to RDM airport that resulted in a TCAS RA followed by a go-around.