Narrative:

On an air carrier flight from ewr to clt, we were flying the ewr 2 departure, 3 mi northwest of col VOR, level 6000', being worked by ny departure control. Ny departure gave us climb clearance to 8000'. Passing through 6400' ny departure called, 'VFR traffic, 1 O'clock, level 7500', nebnd.' we got a visibility on the traffic (appeared to be commuter light transport) and first officer initiated an evasive maneuver by stopping climb at 7100' and making a right turn. I told ny departure that we were leveling 7000' and turning to the right to miss the light transport. Departure said, 'ok, maintain 7000'.' after everything was under control I asked the controller, 'why were we given a climb through a known traffic's altitude which appears to be on a collision bearing with us?' he stated that, 'if there had been a problem, I would have leveled you at 7000'.' I stated, 'that would have been too late because of our climb rate and other possible problems on the frequency.' I found out later the controller was in training and being observed by a trainer and another controller. I seems that the trnee was allowed to climb us into conflicting traffic. The trainer wanted to see if the trnee would see the conflict (?) and make a correction. Being an instrument myself, I understand and approve of this type of training; however, in my opinion, in this case it went too far!! Even if the controller would have given us a new clearance to maintain 7000', it would have been too late, because we would have been above 7000'. We should never have been given the climb to 8000', since there was known conflicting traffic on a collision course with us. More discretion was needed to be used in this situation. If we had stated that we did not see the traffic, there was not enough time to transmit a correction and make that correction!! On discussing this situation with the controller (trainer) and supervisor, I felt that they didn't appreciate the gravity of the situation--this is what scares me the most!!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX ACR-MLG ON SID FROM EWR AND COMMUTER-LTT IN VFR CRUISE.

Narrative: ON AN ACR FLT FROM EWR TO CLT, WE WERE FLYING THE EWR 2 DEP, 3 MI NW OF COL VOR, LEVEL 6000', BEING WORKED BY NY DEP CTL. NY DEP GAVE US CLB CLRNC TO 8000'. PASSING THROUGH 6400' NY DEP CALLED, 'VFR TFC, 1 O'CLOCK, LEVEL 7500', NEBND.' WE GOT A VIS ON THE TFC (APPEARED TO BE COMMUTER LTT) AND F/O INITIATED AN EVASIVE MANEUVER BY STOPPING CLB AT 7100' AND MAKING A RIGHT TURN. I TOLD NY DEP THAT WE WERE LEVELING 7000' AND TURNING TO THE RIGHT TO MISS THE LTT. DEP SAID, 'OK, MAINTAIN 7000'.' AFTER EVERYTHING WAS UNDER CONTROL I ASKED THE CTLR, 'WHY WERE WE GIVEN A CLB THROUGH A KNOWN TFC'S ALT WHICH APPEARS TO BE ON A COLLISION BEARING WITH US?' HE STATED THAT, 'IF THERE HAD BEEN A PROB, I WOULD HAVE LEVELED YOU AT 7000'.' I STATED, 'THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO LATE BECAUSE OF OUR CLB RATE AND OTHER POSSIBLE PROBS ON THE FREQ.' I FOUND OUT LATER THE CTLR WAS IN TRNING AND BEING OBSERVED BY A TRAINER AND ANOTHER CTLR. I SEEMS THAT THE TRNEE WAS ALLOWED TO CLB US INTO CONFLICTING TFC. THE TRAINER WANTED TO SEE IF THE TRNEE WOULD SEE THE CONFLICT (?) AND MAKE A CORRECTION. BEING AN INSTR MYSELF, I UNDERSTAND AND APPROVE OF THIS TYPE OF TRNING; HOWEVER, IN MY OPINION, IN THIS CASE IT WENT TOO FAR!! EVEN IF THE CTLR WOULD HAVE GIVEN US A NEW CLRNC TO MAINTAIN 7000', IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO LATE, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOVE 7000'. WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CLB TO 8000', SINCE THERE WAS KNOWN CONFLICTING TFC ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH US. MORE DISCRETION WAS NEEDED TO BE USED IN THIS SITUATION. IF WE HAD STATED THAT WE DID NOT SEE THE TFC, THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO XMIT A CORRECTION AND MAKE THAT CORRECTION!! ON DISCUSSING THIS SITUATION WITH THE CTLR (TRAINER) AND SUPVR, I FELT THAT THEY DIDN'T APPRECIATE THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION--THIS IS WHAT SCARES ME THE MOST!!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.