Narrative:

We received 2 or 3 radar vectors from the center controller. We were advised that the vectors were 'for traffic.' we complied with each of the heading changes immediately. However, at one point there was a loss of separation, due to controller error, when another aircraft also operating under IFR came within 2 - 2 1/2 mi of us and 500 ft below us. I would suggest that more training for the controller is in order. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter was alerted to a possible violation. It was alleged that the flight crew was slow to respond to the vector headings. When asked for the tapes, and other pertinent information, the reporter was told it would be coming to him. After several weeks the reporter was told that after further review this was viewed as a non event. Wishing to be sure that nothing was left on the flight crew's record, the reporter made another telephone call to the FAA. During this call the reporter was told that no action would be taken against the flight crew and that the controller had been given additional training. A third party contacted the reporter and suggested they had knowledge the threat of a violation was based on the controller's report known to be false by the third party. The reporter assumed that further investigation of that report discovered the actual facts which cleared the flight crew.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CHALLENGER FLC LOST SEPARATION WHILE ON RADAR VECTORS NEAR JFK.

Narrative: WE RECEIVED 2 OR 3 RADAR VECTORS FROM THE CTR CTLR. WE WERE ADVISED THAT THE VECTORS WERE 'FOR TFC.' WE COMPLIED WITH EACH OF THE HDG CHANGES IMMEDIATELY. HOWEVER, AT ONE POINT THERE WAS A LOSS OF SEPARATION, DUE TO CTLR ERROR, WHEN ANOTHER ACFT ALSO OPERATING UNDER IFR CAME WITHIN 2 - 2 1/2 MI OF US AND 500 FT BELOW US. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT MORE TRAINING FOR THE CTLR IS IN ORDER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR WAS ALERTED TO A POSSIBLE VIOLATION. IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE FLC WAS SLOW TO RESPOND TO THE VECTOR HDGS. WHEN ASKED FOR THE TAPES, AND OTHER PERTINENT INFO, THE RPTR WAS TOLD IT WOULD BE COMING TO HIM. AFTER SEVERAL WKS THE RPTR WAS TOLD THAT AFTER FURTHER REVIEW THIS WAS VIEWED AS A NON EVENT. WISHING TO BE SURE THAT NOTHING WAS LEFT ON THE FLC'S RECORD, THE RPTR MADE ANOTHER TELEPHONE CALL TO THE FAA. DURING THIS CALL THE RPTR WAS TOLD THAT NO ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THE FLC AND THAT THE CTLR HAD BEEN GIVEN ADDITIONAL TRAINING. A THIRD PARTY CONTACTED THE RPTR AND SUGGESTED THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE THE THREAT OF A VIOLATION WAS BASED ON THE CTLR'S RPT KNOWN TO BE FALSE BY THE THIRD PARTY. THE RPTR ASSUMED THAT FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THAT RPT DISCOVERED THE ACTUAL FACTS WHICH CLRED THE FLC.

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.