Fractional business jet flight crew reported ATC increased their workload on a visual approach to ln...

Attributes
ACN	1302620
Time
Date	201510
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	LNK.TRACON
State Reference	NE
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft Low Wing 2 Eng Retractable Gear
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Direct
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Not Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Person 2
Function	Pilot Flying First Officer
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach

Narrative:

After checking in with approach we were given a runway assignment of runway 35. After the airplane was configured for 35 we received a runway change to 36 due to traffic for 35. Shortly after we were cleared for a visual approach. My flying pilot began a turn into a down wind to give herself a little space before a base turn to ensure a stabilized approach. The controller then notified us that we would need us to proceed straight to the numbers to avoid a loss of separation with an inbound IFR [multiengine aircraft] for runway 35. We were surprised that the controller failed to provide us with any situational awareness of other traffic before clearing us for a visual and now needed us to either 'go-around' or proceed direct to the numbers. I believe the controller did a rather poor job providing us with either information or the spacing required to execute a proper visual approach. We were able to continue and execute a stabilized approach.I spoke to the controller on the phone after landing and voiced my concern. He was very professional and receptive.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Fractional business jet flight crew reported ATC increased their workload on a visual approach to LNK because of possible conflict with an aircraft on a practice IFR approach.

Narrative: After checking in with approach we were given a runway assignment of runway 35. After the airplane was configured for 35 we received a runway change to 36 due to traffic for 35. Shortly after we were cleared for a visual approach. My flying pilot began a turn into a down wind to give herself a little space before a base turn to ensure a stabilized approach. The controller then notified us that we would need us to proceed straight to the numbers to avoid a loss of separation with an inbound IFR [multiengine aircraft] for runway 35. We were surprised that the Controller failed to provide us with any situational awareness of other traffic before clearing us for a visual and now needed us to either 'go-around' or proceed direct to the numbers. I believe the controller did a rather poor job providing us with either information or the spacing required to execute a proper visual approach. We were able to continue and execute a stabilized approach.I spoke to the Controller on the phone after landing and voiced my concern. He was very professional and receptive.

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.

Fractional business jet flight crew reported ATC increased their workload on a visual approach to lnk because of possible conflict with an aircraft on a practice IFR approach.