Narrative:

I filed a VFR flight plan via duats system at bct for flight to lee (route RNAV pbi-vrb-lee). Miami center handed us off to orlando approach (we were on a discrete squawk on the transponder). I had requested an en route descent but that was delayed. Buildups were rapidly forming to the north. When descent was received on course maintain 5500 ft we were at 14.5 and could not continue on course VFR and descend so requested descent in the south quadrant 180 degree turn back. This was approved. During VFR descent WX was sunny and clear to the east and hazy to west. A vector east around a small cumulus cloud was made and then we received this call from our controller, 'small transport X I told you not to go below 5500 ft and I told you to turn to the west'. I informed controller that we had not received such a call but I would turn west now. My altimeter read 5300 ft so we eased up to 5500 ft in the turn. At this time an airliner called in and stated, 'I want to log a near miss against that twin'. I had seen an airliner behind me and offset a couple of mi. A new controller took over and he said, 'small transport X you were instructed to turn to 270 degree'. I acknowledged that we were and had been in that right turn. He said, 'oh, ok, you're cleared to 4500. Contact orlando approach on 119.4'. The rest of the flight was routine except the controller on 119.4 gave me a phone # to call. It was 2.5 hours before I got to a phone and by then the captain of the airliner had already debriefed with his observations. I was told that the captain had received an onboard collision avoidance alert and had taken the evasive action depicted on his readout. The captain (I was told) withdrew the 'near miss' report because when he sighted me there obviously was no immediate danger of a collision. I, therefore, had to assume that the aircraft I had seen was in fact the one which had logged the 'near miss' in the air. Now comes the reason for my submitting this report: a) I never received any TA. B) I was not given a vector for descent. C) I obviously was allowed to descend into the path of the jet to a position that caused their collision avoidance equipment to signal an alert. D) our close proximity to each other also caused an alarm at the approach control console. We all need to work together to make the system work. The controller cleared me to descend VFR into the south quadrant. If the controller knew of the lower jet traffic (certainly someone did) I should have been told to descend on a specific heading and my altitude restriction should have been increased to 6500 ft or higher. The controller has to know that an aircraft which is descending VFR has the responsibility for collision avoidance and will therefore not by flying instruments, but of necessity, clearing the area into which the descent is being made. However, there is not much chance that the descending aircraft could pick up a visual on fast closing traffic at the 6 O'clock position. The controllers call to our aircraft when the traffic conflict alarm sounded should have been something in the nature of: 'small transport X make an immediate right climbing turn to 6500 ft and 270 degree, acknowledge!' once the FAA representative told me that there was to be no 'midair (near miss)' report filed he went on to say that they (FAA) would still investigate me for being below my assigned descent altitude. We both knew that the 200' error I saw and the 300' error they read out at the control agency would never have caused a raised eyebrow if the proximity alarm had not sounded and if all of this hadn't been tied in with an in-flight activation of the airliner's collision avoidance equipment. It's obvious that the pilot is going to 'pick up the tab' for this incident (and I should be criticized for the 200' error), but I have written this so that the controller trainee that was involved could get a chance to see the problem from the pilot's side. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter says that FAA has not pursued any altitude deviation. Does not know type aircraft on the air carrier. Thinks air carrier Y was at 4500 ft on departure out of mco. Pretty sure that controller was a trainee and second voice was that of instructor controller. Reporter flight was VFR all the way and on VFR flight plan. Descent through TCA was with ATC clearance. Doesnot know if air carrier Y took any evasive action. Air carrier that reporter saw was at about 6 O'clock position and several mi away.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR GOT TCASII ALERT REF GA TWIN ACFT AND ACR COMPLAINED ABOUT PROX OF TFC.

Narrative: I FILED A VFR FLT PLAN VIA DUATS SYS AT BCT FOR FLT TO LEE (RTE RNAV PBI-VRB-LEE). MIAMI CENTER HANDED US OFF TO ORLANDO APCH (WE WERE ON A DISCRETE SQUAWK ON THE TRANSPONDER). I HAD REQUESTED AN ENRTE DSCNT BUT THAT WAS DELAYED. BUILDUPS WERE RAPIDLY FORMING TO THE N. WHEN DSCNT WAS RECEIVED ON COURSE MAINTAIN 5500 FT WE WERE AT 14.5 AND COULD NOT CONTINUE ON COURSE VFR AND DSND SO REQUESTED DSCNT IN THE S QUADRANT 180 DEG TURN BACK. THIS WAS APPROVED. DURING VFR DSCNT WX WAS SUNNY AND CLR TO THE E AND HAZY TO W. A VECTOR E AROUND A SMALL CUMULUS CLOUD WAS MADE AND THEN WE RECEIVED THIS CALL FROM OUR CTLR, 'SMT X I TOLD YOU NOT TO GO BELOW 5500 FT AND I TOLD YOU TO TURN TO THE W'. I INFORMED CTLR THAT WE HAD NOT RECEIVED SUCH A CALL BUT I WOULD TURN W NOW. MY ALTIMETER READ 5300 FT SO WE EASED UP TO 5500 FT IN THE TURN. AT THIS TIME AN AIRLINER CALLED IN AND STATED, 'I WANT TO LOG A NEAR MISS AGAINST THAT TWIN'. I HAD SEEN AN AIRLINER BEHIND ME AND OFFSET A COUPLE OF MI. A NEW CTLR TOOK OVER AND HE SAID, 'SMT X YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO TURN TO 270 DEG'. I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE WERE AND HAD BEEN IN THAT R TURN. HE SAID, 'OH, OK, YOU'RE CLRED TO 4500. CONTACT ORLANDO APCH ON 119.4'. THE REST OF THE FLT WAS ROUTINE EXCEPT THE CTLR ON 119.4 GAVE ME A PHONE # TO CALL. IT WAS 2.5 HRS BEFORE I GOT TO A PHONE AND BY THEN THE CAPT OF THE AIRLINER HAD ALREADY DEBRIEFED WITH HIS OBSERVATIONS. I WAS TOLD THAT THE CAPT HAD RECEIVED AN ONBOARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE ALERT AND HAD TAKEN THE EVASIVE ACTION DEPICTED ON HIS READOUT. THE CAPT (I WAS TOLD) WITHDREW THE 'NEAR MISS' RPT BECAUSE WHEN HE SIGHTED ME THERE OBVIOUSLY WAS NO IMMEDIATE DANGER OF A COLLISION. I, THEREFORE, HAD TO ASSUME THAT THE ACFT I HAD SEEN WAS IN FACT THE ONE WHICH HAD LOGGED THE 'NEAR MISS' IN THE AIR. NOW COMES THE REASON FOR MY SUBMITTING THIS RPT: A) I NEVER RECEIVED ANY TA. B) I WAS NOT GIVEN A VECTOR FOR DSCNT. C) I OBVIOUSLY WAS ALLOWED TO DSND INTO THE PATH OF THE JET TO A POS THAT CAUSED THEIR COLLISION AVOIDANCE EQUIP TO SIGNAL AN ALERT. D) OUR CLOSE PROX TO EACH OTHER ALSO CAUSED AN ALARM AT THE APCH CTL CONSOLE. WE ALL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE THE SYS WORK. THE CTLR CLRED ME TO DSND VFR INTO THE S QUADRANT. IF THE CTLR KNEW OF THE LOWER JET TFC (CERTAINLY SOMEONE DID) I SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD TO DSND ON A SPECIFIC HDG AND MY ALT RESTRICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCREASED TO 6500 FT OR HIGHER. THE CTLR HAS TO KNOW THAT AN ACFT WHICH IS DSNDING VFR HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLISION AVOIDANCE AND WILL THEREFORE NOT BY FLYING INSTS, BUT OF NECESSITY, CLRING THE AREA INTO WHICH THE DSCNT IS BEING MADE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOT MUCH CHANCE THAT THE DSNDING ACFT COULD PICK UP A VISUAL ON FAST CLOSING TFC AT THE 6 O'CLOCK POS. THE CTLRS CALL TO OUR ACFT WHEN THE TFC CONFLICT ALARM SOUNDED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF: 'SMT X MAKE AN IMMEDIATE R CLBING TURN TO 6500 FT AND 270 DEG, ACKNOWLEDGE!' ONCE THE FAA REPRESENTATIVE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS TO BE NO 'MIDAIR (NEAR MISS)' RPT FILED HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THEY (FAA) WOULD STILL INVESTIGATE ME FOR BEING BELOW MY ASSIGNED DSCNT ALT. WE BOTH KNEW THAT THE 200' ERROR I SAW AND THE 300' ERROR THEY READ OUT AT THE CTL AGENCY WOULD NEVER HAVE CAUSED A RAISED EYEBROW IF THE PROX ALARM HAD NOT SOUNDED AND IF ALL OF THIS HADN'T BEEN TIED IN WITH AN INFLT ACTIVATION OF THE AIRLINER'S COLLISION AVOIDANCE EQUIP. IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THE PLT IS GOING TO 'PICK UP THE TAB' FOR THIS INCIDENT (AND I SHOULD BE CRITICIZED FOR THE 200' ERROR), BUT I HAVE WRITTEN THIS SO THAT THE CTLR TRAINEE THAT WAS INVOLVED COULD GET A CHANCE TO SEE THE PROBLEM FROM THE PLT'S SIDE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR SAYS THAT FAA HAS NOT PURSUED ANY ALT DEV. DOES NOT KNOW TYPE ACFT ON THE ACR. THINKS ACR Y WAS AT 4500 FT ON DEP OUT OF MCO. PRETTY SURE THAT CTLR WAS A TRAINEE AND SECOND VOICE WAS THAT OF INSTRUCTOR CTLR. RPTR FLT WAS VFR ALL THE WAY AND ON VFR FLT PLAN. DSCNT THROUGH TCA WAS WITH ATC CLRNC. DOESNOT KNOW IF ACR Y TOOK ANY EVASIVE ACTION. ACR THAT RPTR SAW WAS AT ABOUT 6 O'CLOCK POS AND SEVERAL MI AWAY.

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.