Narrative:

Light transport on VOR-a approach with ZMP on ZMP frequency 132.9. Also on IFR flight plan. Small aircraft VFR holding southwest tvc VOR at 2500' MSL. ZMP advised tvc ATCT light transport 10 south of VOR turning onto approach. Tvc advised of small aircraft holding at 25000' squawking 1201. Flight data advised ZMP radar that tvc local controller would move small aircraft holding for IFR inbound west/O first discussing resolution of possible conflict with local controller. Local controller called traffic to small aircraft holding: 'traffic 10 mi south of VOR turning onto final approach course.' small aircraft: 'negative traffic, we're 4 southwest of VOR.' local saw small aircraft making left turn possibly joining tvc 180 degree right inbound on hold. Local controller suggested small aircraft vacate area due to IFR traffic inbound on tvc 160 degree right. Small aircraft wasn't in air traffic area and did not see light transport traffic. ZMP had both aircraft on radar and broke light transport off the approach and vectored for ILS to runway 28. ZMP controller was upset with tvc local controller for not issuing VFR aircraft. Local not responsible nor eligible to provide sep between VFR/IFR aircraft. ZMP has radar and in violation of LOA with traffic (the VOR-a approach; i.e., in conflict with runway 18 departure, runway 18 in use). Tvc ATCT only VFR level ii tower. It seems that tvc flight data stated the problem by telling ZMP that local control would move VFR aircraft. Local controller does not control VFR aircraft and will not turn aircraft that he does not have in sight. ZMP (ARTCC) does not understand the limitation of a VFR tower controller. ZMP controllers sometimes feel that their IFR aircraft have priority over VFR aircraft, and unless pilot of IFR request sep, very seldom even gives VFR traffic on the fringe of the air traffic area to the the IFR aircraft. Suggest possible approach control at tvc to provide all sep requirements.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ARTCC RADAR CTLR HAD TO VECTOR IFR ACFT TO AVOID A VFR ACFT HOLDING OVER THE VOR AT 2500'.

Narrative: LTT ON VOR-A APCH WITH ZMP ON ZMP FREQ 132.9. ALSO ON IFR FLT PLAN. SMA VFR HOLDING SW TVC VOR AT 2500' MSL. ZMP ADVISED TVC ATCT LTT 10 S OF VOR TURNING ONTO APCH. TVC ADVISED OF SMA HOLDING AT 25000' SQUAWKING 1201. FLT DATA ADVISED ZMP RADAR THAT TVC LCL CTLR WOULD MOVE SMA HOLDING FOR IFR INBND W/O FIRST DISCUSSING RESOLUTION OF POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH LCL CTLR. LCL CTLR CALLED TFC TO SMA HOLDING: 'TFC 10 MI S OF VOR TURNING ONTO FINAL APCH COURSE.' SMA: 'NEGATIVE TFC, WE'RE 4 SW OF VOR.' LCL SAW SMA MAKING LEFT TURN POSSIBLY JOINING TVC 180 DEG R INBND ON HOLD. LCL CTLR SUGGESTED SMA VACATE AREA DUE TO IFR TFC INBND ON TVC 160 DEG R. SMA WASN'T IN ATA AND DID NOT SEE LTT TFC. ZMP HAD BOTH ACFT ON RADAR AND BROKE LTT OFF THE APCH AND VECTORED FOR ILS TO RWY 28. ZMP CTLR WAS UPSET WITH TVC LCL CTLR FOR NOT ISSUING VFR ACFT. LCL NOT RESPONSIBLE NOR ELIGIBLE TO PROVIDE SEP BTWN VFR/IFR ACFT. ZMP HAS RADAR AND IN VIOLATION OF LOA WITH TFC (THE VOR-A APCH; I.E., IN CONFLICT WITH RWY 18 DEP, RWY 18 IN USE). TVC ATCT ONLY VFR LEVEL II TWR. IT SEEMS THAT TVC FLT DATA STATED THE PROB BY TELLING ZMP THAT LCL CTL WOULD MOVE VFR ACFT. LCL CTLR DOES NOT CTL VFR ACFT AND WILL NOT TURN ACFT THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE IN SIGHT. ZMP (ARTCC) DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATION OF A VFR TWR CTLR. ZMP CTLRS SOMETIMES FEEL THAT THEIR IFR ACFT HAVE PRIORITY OVER VFR ACFT, AND UNLESS PLT OF IFR REQUEST SEP, VERY SELDOM EVEN GIVES VFR TFC ON THE FRINGE OF THE ATA TO THE THE IFR ACFT. SUGGEST POSSIBLE APCH CTL AT TVC TO PROVIDE ALL SEP REQUIREMENTS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.