Narrative:

We were level at 3000 ft about 15-20 mi wnw of teb on vectors for a VOR runway 24 approach to teb (we eventually did a visual approach to runway 24). ATC issued traffic at 11-12 O'clock position at 2500 ft unverified. We were in the clouds at the time and advised ATC. I think we were on about a 140 degree heading and ATC issued a left turn to 090 degrees. We also got a TCAS alert; 'traffic; traffic' (we have tcasi so I didn't get an RA). About the time we got to the 090 degree heading; we broke out of the clouds and saw the traffic. It looked to be less than 100 ft below and 500 ft in front of us. I disengaged the autoplt and turned right to miss the other aircraft. The other aircraft (appeared to be a C172); looked like it may have turned also. TCAS now showed the traffic to be 100 ft below us. If the other aircraft was meeting the cloud clearance requirements for class east airspace; it was marginal at best. He was definitely above the bases of the clouds. I can't say for sure how far he was laterally from the clouds; but it didn't look like 2000 ft to me. Contributing factors include WX; ATC's failure to provide vectors away from known VFR traffic and failure to issue a 'traffic alert' (they may have; but I don't recall hearing it; more on that below); lack of TCASII on our aircraft; and the other aircraft flying with either marginal or illegal cloud clearance especially in a congested area (under the 30 mi veil of nyc class B). If my concern for the near miss isn't enough; I'm also bothered by a discussion I had with an FAA inspector at the teb FSDO 3 days after the event. He said he needed some additional information to complete his report. Several things he said that were in the report from ATC (TRACON) seemed to be in conflict with what I remembered or facts that I believe are not correct. In no particular order: 1) he said the report showed ATC issued a turn to avoid the traffic. The turn to 090 degrees was for vectors to the approach as far as I know; and in fact; it turned us directly toward the traffic. 2) he said the report said ATC issued a 'traffic alert.' I heard a 'TA' from them but don't recall hearing an 'alert.' if they issued it as I was in the turn to avoid the traffic; I may have missed it; but I don't recall hearing it. 3) the inspector said the pilot of the other aircraft told him (and he seemed to accept as fact) that they were 1200 ft above the ground and thus in class G airspace and only required 1 mi visibility and clear of clouds. That would put them no higher than 2700 ft and thus 300 ft below us. I don't think I am that far off with my estimate of altitude. Furthermore; I believe the floor of class east airspace around the sax (sparta) VOR is actually 700 ft not 1200 ft. That would put the other aircraft in class east airspace and I can't say for sure; but if they met the cloud clearance requirement for that; it was marginal. 4) the inspector seemed to accept the entire event as just one of those things that happens; and thought that everyone had done everything right; or at least within the far's. He implied that he was just filling in details and that his investigation would say there were no problems or errors made. I'm concerned that there were at least a couple of errors; or possible some issues of legality that the inspector isn't following up on. He may be; but what the told me was that he hadn't found fault with anyone at this point.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CJ3 ON VECTORS WITH N90 AT 3000 FT; EXPERIENCED CONFLICT WITH VFR TFC; REPORTER VOICED CONCERN WITH FAA INVESTIGATION AND CONCLUSIONS.

Narrative: WE WERE LEVEL AT 3000 FT ABOUT 15-20 MI WNW OF TEB ON VECTORS FOR A VOR RWY 24 APCH TO TEB (WE EVENTUALLY DID A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 24). ATC ISSUED TFC AT 11-12 O'CLOCK POS AT 2500 FT UNVERIFIED. WE WERE IN THE CLOUDS AT THE TIME AND ADVISED ATC. I THINK WE WERE ON ABOUT A 140 DEG HDG AND ATC ISSUED A L TURN TO 090 DEGS. WE ALSO GOT A TCAS ALERT; 'TFC; TFC' (WE HAVE TCASI SO I DIDN'T GET AN RA). ABOUT THE TIME WE GOT TO THE 090 DEG HDG; WE BROKE OUT OF THE CLOUDS AND SAW THE TFC. IT LOOKED TO BE LESS THAN 100 FT BELOW AND 500 FT IN FRONT OF US. I DISENGAGED THE AUTOPLT AND TURNED R TO MISS THE OTHER ACFT. THE OTHER ACFT (APPEARED TO BE A C172); LOOKED LIKE IT MAY HAVE TURNED ALSO. TCAS NOW SHOWED THE TFC TO BE 100 FT BELOW US. IF THE OTHER ACFT WAS MEETING THE CLOUD CLRNC REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS E AIRSPACE; IT WAS MARGINAL AT BEST. HE WAS DEFINITELY ABOVE THE BASES OF THE CLOUDS. I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE HOW FAR HE WAS LATERALLY FROM THE CLOUDS; BUT IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE 2000 FT TO ME. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS INCLUDE WX; ATC'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE VECTORS AWAY FROM KNOWN VFR TFC AND FAILURE TO ISSUE A 'TFC ALERT' (THEY MAY HAVE; BUT I DON'T RECALL HEARING IT; MORE ON THAT BELOW); LACK OF TCASII ON OUR ACFT; AND THE OTHER ACFT FLYING WITH EITHER MARGINAL OR ILLEGAL CLOUD CLRNC ESPECIALLY IN A CONGESTED AREA (UNDER THE 30 MI VEIL OF NYC CLASS B). IF MY CONCERN FOR THE NEAR MISS ISN'T ENOUGH; I'M ALSO BOTHERED BY A DISCUSSION I HAD WITH AN FAA INSPECTOR AT THE TEB FSDO 3 DAYS AFTER THE EVENT. HE SAID HE NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFO TO COMPLETE HIS RPT. SEVERAL THINGS HE SAID THAT WERE IN THE RPT FROM ATC (TRACON) SEEMED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT I REMEMBERED OR FACTS THAT I BELIEVE ARE NOT CORRECT. IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER: 1) HE SAID THE RPT SHOWED ATC ISSUED A TURN TO AVOID THE TFC. THE TURN TO 090 DEGS WAS FOR VECTORS TO THE APCH AS FAR AS I KNOW; AND IN FACT; IT TURNED US DIRECTLY TOWARD THE TFC. 2) HE SAID THE RPT SAID ATC ISSUED A 'TFC ALERT.' I HEARD A 'TA' FROM THEM BUT DON'T RECALL HEARING AN 'ALERT.' IF THEY ISSUED IT AS I WAS IN THE TURN TO AVOID THE TFC; I MAY HAVE MISSED IT; BUT I DON'T RECALL HEARING IT. 3) THE INSPECTOR SAID THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT TOLD HIM (AND HE SEEMED TO ACCEPT AS FACT) THAT THEY WERE 1200 FT ABOVE THE GND AND THUS IN CLASS G AIRSPACE AND ONLY REQUIRED 1 MI VISIBILITY AND CLR OF CLOUDS. THAT WOULD PUT THEM NO HIGHER THAN 2700 FT AND THUS 300 FT BELOW US. I DON'T THINK I AM THAT FAR OFF WITH MY ESTIMATE OF ALT. FURTHERMORE; I BELIEVE THE FLOOR OF CLASS E AIRSPACE AROUND THE SAX (SPARTA) VOR IS ACTUALLY 700 FT NOT 1200 FT. THAT WOULD PUT THE OTHER ACFT IN CLASS E AIRSPACE AND I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE; BUT IF THEY MET THE CLOUD CLRNC REQUIREMENT FOR THAT; IT WAS MARGINAL. 4) THE INSPECTOR SEEMED TO ACCEPT THE ENTIRE EVENT AS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAPPENS; AND THOUGHT THAT EVERYONE HAD DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT; OR AT LEAST WITHIN THE FAR'S. HE IMPLIED THAT HE WAS JUST FILLING IN DETAILS AND THAT HIS INVESTIGATION WOULD SAY THERE WERE NO PROBS OR ERRORS MADE. I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE WERE AT LEAST A COUPLE OF ERRORS; OR POSSIBLE SOME ISSUES OF LEGALITY THAT THE INSPECTOR ISN'T FOLLOWING UP ON. HE MAY BE; BUT WHAT THE TOLD ME WAS THAT HE HADN'T FOUND FAULT WITH ANYONE AT THIS POINT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.