Narrative:

On IFR flight to ZZZ via radar vectors in class B airspace (vfr conditions). Received descent from 3;000 to 2700 msl. Approximately 8 miles south of airport; approach turned us from heading 160 to 090 (extended left base) for runway 34 at ZZZ and told us to contact tower. About 2 seconds later we received a TA at our 9 to 10 o'clock position (target aircraft was showing -300 feet and climbing directly at us approximately 1/2 to 1 mile away); I visually acquired aircraft in a few seconds; and then a few seconds later we got an RA for a climb. I initiated a 2000 ft/min climb to avoid aircraft. The aircraft appeared to be on a right downwind departing the pattern to the south from ZZZ. Once the aircraft past; we descended; reported the RA to approach control and then contacted tower and completed the visual approach.this is not the first time; from this facility; that a controller gave us a heading turn into the path of a conflicting aircraft departing this airport. There was no traffic report from the approach controller and it was clear to us that the approach controller was trying to 'hurry us off his frequency' so as not to have to deal with this traffic situation. The controller should have done one a few items:1) kept us on his frequency; given us the traffic advisory until the aircraft was well clear; then cleared us for the visual; OR2) kept us on the 160 heading and coordinated with the tower controller on the traffic before clearing us for the visual;OR3) advised us of the conflicting traffic and given us the choice to turn on not until we picked up the traffic and used visual separation to remain safe;OR4) given us a climb back into class B airspace (@ 4000 msl) to ensure safe separation.this particular location where the problem occurred was below class B shelf and outside ZZZ delta airspace; i.e no-man's land with us being put in a vulnerable position.this is a recurring problem in this airspace and this is the 3rd time (in 3 months) we have been put in a conflicting position requiring RA maneuvers to avoid traffic. Unless addressed; this may result in an accident in the future. There needs to be better coordination between approach control and tower controllers (or departure procedures) out of ZZZ to provide better coordination of arriving and departing traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BE40 air crew received a vector while on approach; were given a vector in front of another aircraft resulting in an RA. They complied with the RA; reported it to approach control and completed the visual approach.

Narrative: On IFR flight to ZZZ via radar vectors in Class B airspace (vfr conditions). Received descent from 3;000 to 2700 msl. Approximately 8 miles south of airport; Approach turned us from heading 160 to 090 (extended left base) for runway 34 at ZZZ and told us to contact tower. About 2 seconds later we received a TA at our 9 to 10 o'clock position (target aircraft was showing -300 feet and climbing directly at us approximately 1/2 to 1 mile away); I visually acquired aircraft in a few seconds; and then a few seconds later we got an RA for a climb. I initiated a 2000 ft/min climb to avoid aircraft. The aircraft appeared to be on a right downwind departing the pattern to the south from ZZZ. Once the aircraft past; we descended; reported the RA to approach control and then contacted tower and completed the visual approach.This is not the first time; from this facility; that a controller gave us a heading turn into the path of a conflicting aircraft departing this airport. There was no traffic report from the approach controller and it was clear to us that the approach controller was trying to 'hurry us off his frequency' so as not to have to deal with this traffic situation. The controller should have done one a few items:1) Kept us on his frequency; given us the traffic advisory until the aircraft was well clear; then cleared us for the visual; OR2) Kept us on the 160 heading and coordinated with the tower controller on the traffic before clearing us for the visual;OR3) Advised us of the conflicting traffic and given us the choice to turn on not until we picked up the traffic and used visual separation to remain safe;OR4) Given us a climb back into Class B airspace (@ 4000 msl) to ensure safe separation.This particular location where the problem occurred was below Class B shelf and outside ZZZ Delta airspace; i.e no-man's land with us being put in a vulnerable position.This is a recurring problem in this airspace and this is the 3rd time (in 3 months) we have been put in a conflicting position requiring RA maneuvers to avoid traffic. Unless addressed; this may result in an accident in the future. There needs to be better coordination between approach control and tower controllers (or departure procedures) out of ZZZ to provide better coordination of arriving and departing traffic.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.