Air carrier under N90 control experienced a TCAS RA with reported VFR traffic 500 ft below. The cont...

Narrative:

We were being vectored for an approach into newark. Approach had us on a heading and informed us that on that heading; we had VFR traffic at our 12 o'clock and 500 ft below us. We were looking for the light twin and were unable to pick him out. We had the aircraft on the TCAS; but not a visual. I was pilot not flying and was looking for the aircraft as well as monitoring the TCAS. We were at 6;000 ft and the VFR traffic climbed to within 400 ft of us giving us an RA. At that time I alerted ATC stating that we received an RA and were commencing a climb. At 6;700 ft we were clear of conflict and started back down to 6;000. The controller stated that he was VFR and that he never got to within less than 500 ft of us. He then went on to say that he didn't see why we had to climb all the way to 7;000 ft when we only climbed to 6;700 ft. He then said that with us climbing it put us in conflict with other traffic around us but I guess you got to do what you have to do he said. I informed him that if I don't have the traffic insight and I receive an RA; I will do what the aircraft instructs me to do. After we descended back to our altitude; we continued the flight with no other problems.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier under N90 control experienced a TCAS RA with reported VFR traffic 500 FT below. The Controller indicated the TCAS RA response cause another conflict.

Narrative: We were being vectored for an approach into Newark. Approach had us on a heading and informed us that on that heading; we had VFR traffic at our 12 o'clock and 500 FT below us. We were looking for the light twin and were unable to pick him out. We had the aircraft on the TCAS; but not a visual. I was pilot not flying and was looking for the aircraft as well as monitoring the TCAS. We were at 6;000 FT and the VFR traffic climbed to within 400 FT of us giving us an RA. At that time I alerted ATC stating that we received an RA and were commencing a climb. At 6;700 FT we were clear of conflict and started back down to 6;000. The Controller stated that he was VFR and that he never got to within less than 500 FT of us. He then went on to say that he didn't see why we had to climb all the way to 7;000 FT when we only climbed to 6;700 FT. He then said that with us climbing it put us in conflict with other traffic around us but I guess you got to do what you have to do he said. I informed him that if I don't have the traffic insight and I receive an RA; I will do what the aircraft instructs me to do. After we descended back to our altitude; we continued the flight with no other problems.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.

Attributes
ACN	1039013
Time
Date	201209
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	EWR.Airport
State Reference	NJ
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Not Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Person 2
Function	First Officer Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude

Air carrier under N90 control experienced a TCAS RA with reported VFR traffic 500 ft below. The controller indicated the TCAS RA response cause another conflict.