Narrative:

While on a vector for a visual approach to runway 26 at phl, we had an RA. Phl approach had us on a 150 degree heading at 6000 ft (level). A B737 converged on us at approximately our 7 O'clock position. We noted the TA on the TCASII, but the first officer could not inform approach control due to the volume of radio traffic. The other aircraft was at our altitude and apparently much faster. We were doing approximately 200 KTS. I informed the first officer that it looked like it was going to be close. I initiated a climb for evasive action just before getting a TCASII RA to climb. I told the first officer to notify approach that we were taking evasive action. He did so and there was a period of silence from approach before they responded with a heading change. The B737 took evasive action as well with a right turn, followed by a hard left climbing turn. The ATC controller gave us a 200 degree heading and nothing was said about the incident from ATC. I called the approach control supervisor after landing and he advised me that the controller had come to him and said 'a couple got tangled up out there,' at which point they began pulling the tapes. The ATC supervisor informed me at that time that the ATC alarms went off when the 2 aircraft were at 200 ft and 1.72 NM from each other. Approach control quality assurance personnel told me in a later telephone call that it was controller error. They informed me that the other aircraft as 100 KTS faster and was being vectored on a different frequency, while we had been switched to the final controller. He also stated that ATC gave the B737 an evasive maneuver vector and climb that conflicted with the B737 RA from TCASII. A controller change (relief) was also in progress that may have contributed to the conflict.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C750 IS OVERTAKEN BY A B737, SAME ALT, SAME DIRECTION, WITH THE B737 GIVEN AN EVASIVE ACTION MANEUVER BY ATC THAT WAS CONTRADICTORY TO THEIR TCASII RA COMMAND HEAR PHL, PA.

Narrative: WHILE ON A VECTOR FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 26 AT PHL, WE HAD AN RA. PHL APCH HAD US ON A 150 DEG HDG AT 6000 FT (LEVEL). A B737 CONVERGED ON US AT APPROX OUR 7 O'CLOCK POS. WE NOTED THE TA ON THE TCASII, BUT THE FO COULD NOT INFORM APCH CTL DUE TO THE VOLUME OF RADIO TFC. THE OTHER ACFT WAS AT OUR ALT AND APPARENTLY MUCH FASTER. WE WERE DOING APPROX 200 KTS. I INFORMED THE FO THAT IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE CLOSE. I INITIATED A CLB FOR EVASIVE ACTION JUST BEFORE GETTING A TCASII RA TO CLB. I TOLD THE FO TO NOTIFY APCH THAT WE WERE TAKING EVASIVE ACTION. HE DID SO AND THERE WAS A PERIOD OF SILENCE FROM APCH BEFORE THEY RESPONDED WITH A HDG CHANGE. THE B737 TOOK EVASIVE ACTION AS WELL WITH A R TURN, FOLLOWED BY A HARD L CLBING TURN. THE ATC CTLR GAVE US A 200 DEG HDG AND NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT THE INCIDENT FROM ATC. I CALLED THE APCH CTL SUPVR AFTER LNDG AND HE ADVISED ME THAT THE CTLR HAD COME TO HIM AND SAID 'A COUPLE GOT TANGLED UP OUT THERE,' AT WHICH POINT THEY BEGAN PULLING THE TAPES. THE ATC SUPVR INFORMED ME AT THAT TIME THAT THE ATC ALARMS WENT OFF WHEN THE 2 ACFT WERE AT 200 FT AND 1.72 NM FROM EACH OTHER. APCH CTL QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL TOLD ME IN A LATER TELEPHONE CALL THAT IT WAS CTLR ERROR. THEY INFORMED ME THAT THE OTHER ACFT AS 100 KTS FASTER AND WAS BEING VECTORED ON A DIFFERENT FREQ, WHILE WE HAD BEEN SWITCHED TO THE FINAL CTLR. HE ALSO STATED THAT ATC GAVE THE B737 AN EVASIVE MANEUVER VECTOR AND CLB THAT CONFLICTED WITH THE B737 RA FROM TCASII. A CTLR CHANGE (RELIEF) WAS ALSO IN PROGRESS THAT MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CONFLICT.

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.