Narrative:

TCASII RA on departure from sna. Just cleared direct bhose around 6600 ft. Controller cleared us to 13000 ft and advised us that a nearby commuter aircraft had us visually. Shortly after that we had an RA that required an immediate descent. The intruder passed off to the right. The problem is that the controller was very defensive about this situation when advised that we had an RA. We advised him that we were required to comply with the RA and he stated that it was 'our problem.' this guy does not understand about TCASII RA's. Also, it is not very comforting when ATC waves your IFR separation because another aircraft 'has you in sight.' callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the captain said that he filled out a company/union incident report, a copy of which was sent to ZLA. The center said that they received the message too late to save the tape of the incident, however, they did speak with the controller who worked the flight. The ZLA respondent said that supervisors emphasized to the particular controller and others that all parties to a close visual pass must see each other in order to avoid this type of reaction situation. The captain said that he was sure that the controling agency was coast approach. He also said that he would have called had he known the correct phone number, however, he did not want to further antagonize the controller by asking for the number. The reporter was flying an airbus A320 at the time of the incident.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EVASIVE ACTION CLB. ACR GETS AN RA AFTER THE CTLR MENTIONS TFC IN THEIR VICINITY THAT THE ACR CREW DOES NOT SEE.

Narrative: TCASII RA ON DEP FROM SNA. JUST CLRED DIRECT BHOSE AROUND 6600 FT. CTLR CLRED US TO 13000 FT AND ADVISED US THAT A NEARBY COMMUTER ACFT HAD US VISUALLY. SHORTLY AFTER THAT WE HAD AN RA THAT REQUIRED AN IMMEDIATE DSCNT. THE INTRUDER PASSED OFF TO THE R. THE PROB IS THAT THE CTLR WAS VERY DEFENSIVE ABOUT THIS SIT WHEN ADVISED THAT WE HAD AN RA. WE ADVISED HIM THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE RA AND HE STATED THAT IT WAS 'OUR PROB.' THIS GUY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT TCASII RA'S. ALSO, IT IS NOT VERY COMFORTING WHEN ATC WAVES YOUR IFR SEPARATION BECAUSE ANOTHER ACFT 'HAS YOU IN SIGHT.' CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CAPT SAID THAT HE FILLED OUT A COMPANY/UNION INCIDENT RPT, A COPY OF WHICH WAS SENT TO ZLA. THE CTR SAID THAT THEY RECEIVED THE MESSAGE TOO LATE TO SAVE THE TAPE OF THE INCIDENT, HOWEVER, THEY DID SPEAK WITH THE CTLR WHO WORKED THE FLT. THE ZLA RESPONDENT SAID THAT SUPVRS EMPHASIZED TO THE PARTICULAR CTLR AND OTHERS THAT ALL PARTIES TO A CLOSE VISUAL PASS MUST SEE EACH OTHER IN ORDER TO AVOID THIS TYPE OF REACTION SIT. THE CAPT SAID THAT HE WAS SURE THAT THE CTLING AGENCY WAS COAST APCH. HE ALSO SAID THAT HE WOULD HAVE CALLED HAD HE KNOWN THE CORRECT PHONE NUMBER, HOWEVER, HE DID NOT WANT TO FURTHER ANTAGONIZE THE CTLR BY ASKING FOR THE NUMBER. THE RPTR WAS FLYING AN AIRBUS A320 AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.

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.