 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Pilot reports of an airborne conflict that was pointed out by ATC. ATC turns the aircraft and the aircraft then receives an RA and climbs. ATC questions the pilot why they were using TCAS in a terminal environment and why they climbed.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1203179 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201409 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | LUF.TRACON |
| State Reference | AZ |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Small Transport |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Descent |
| Route In Use | Vectors |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
While on our flight to scottsdale we were handed off to luke AFB approach north of the phoenix area. We were level at 6000 feet and approach called traffic at our 2 o'clock and 5500; a light aircraft I believe. He then gave us a heading which put us directly toward the traffic. I dialed in the heading; but my first officer thought it odd enough; he questioned the controller why he was turning us directly toward the traffic. The controller reiterated that he was talking to the aircraft and he was level at 5500 ft. Seconds later we got a TCAS traffic call followed but a RA climb; which we did. We never saw the traffic; but we saw on the TCAS the aircraft had climbed to within 300 feet. (It was hot and bumpy over the hills.) we advised the controller of the RA. Everything was routine up to this point; but when we reported the RA; the controller got upset at us for climbing and responding to a RA. (We climbed about 400 feet before returning to 6000). He even questioned us why we were 'using TCAS in a terminal area' and insisted the traffic was level at 5500. I suspect this controller does not have a good understanding of how TCAS RA's work; and that we are required to respond.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Pilot reports of an airborne conflict that was pointed out by ATC. ATC turns the aircraft and the aircraft then receives an RA and climbs. ATC questions the pilot why they were using TCAS in a terminal environment and why they climbed.
Narrative: While on our flight to Scottsdale we were handed off to Luke AFB Approach north of the Phoenix area. We were level at 6000 feet and approach called traffic at our 2 o'clock and 5500; a light aircraft I believe. He then gave us a heading which put us directly toward the traffic. I dialed in the heading; but my First Officer thought it odd enough; he questioned the controller why he was turning us directly toward the traffic. The controller reiterated that he was talking to the aircraft and he was level at 5500 ft. Seconds later we got a TCAS traffic call followed but a RA climb; which we did. We never saw the traffic; but we saw on the TCAS the aircraft had climbed to within 300 feet. (It was hot and bumpy over the hills.) We advised the controller of the RA. Everything was routine up to this point; but when we reported the RA; the controller got upset at us for climbing and responding to a RA. (we climbed about 400 feet before returning to 6000). He even questioned us why we were 'Using TCAS in a terminal area' and insisted the traffic was level at 5500. I suspect this controller does not have a good understanding of how TCAS RA's work; and that we are required to respond.
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.