Narrative:

We were on a ssw vector and level at an assigned altitude of 7000'. Arrival controller called traffic to us, an air carrier X at 11-12 O'clock, 6 mi, 'climbing through your altitude, he has you in sight.' we acknowledged sighting traffic and continued. The controller told us the aircraft was going through our altitude. It didn't look like it, but we kept an eye on air carrier X. Later ATC called the traffic at 11-12 O'clock and 3 mi. Again we acknowledged that we saw the traffic. Never were we requested to keep traffic in sight for visibility avoidance, but it became more and more apparent that the controller's information was wrong--air carrier X was below us, climbing and on a collision course. We rapidly banked right to take evasive action. In a subsequent phone conference call between the air carrier X captain, me and the houston approach control room supervisor that same night, air carrier X captain confirmed that he saw us immediately when we were pointed out to him and he accepted a clearance to climb, reference us, but that even as he began turning, he 'couldn't get relative motion' on us--that we stayed in 1 spot on the wind screen until he too detected an imminent collision course, at which time he ordered his first officer (who was flying) to 'miss him.' air carrier X also banked hard right to avoid collision. ATC radar tapes show the aircraft came within .4248 mi (2500') horizontal and 200' vertical of each other. We think it was less than 1000'. Supplemental information from acn 124506: as we leveled at 5600', we were advised of traffic at 12 O'clock, opp direction, descending to 6000'. The captain acknowledged that we had the traffic in sight. Departure then cleared us to 'maintain visibility with the large transport, climb and maintain 15000'.' the captain acknowledged and I commenced the climb. Supplemental information from acn 124439: an investigation ensued and a system error was declared against me, even though the pilot of air carrier X saw the traffic and accepted the clearance to maintain visibility sep with air carrier Y. There is no action pending against the pilot of air carrier X, even though he came too close to air carrier Y. If the pilots cannot accept responsibility for their actions, I propose that all visibility sep procedures be removed from the ATC manual. The pilots don't want controllers 'in the cockpit,' i.e., 'let us fly our airplanes;' however, they want someone to be their scapegoat when they exercise incorrect or improper procedures.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ARRIVING ACR CAME IN CLOSE PROX TO A DEPARTING ACR.

Narrative: WE WERE ON A SSW VECTOR AND LEVEL AT AN ASSIGNED ALT OF 7000'. ARR CTLR CALLED TFC TO US, AN ACR X AT 11-12 O'CLOCK, 6 MI, 'CLBING THROUGH YOUR ALT, HE HAS YOU IN SIGHT.' WE ACKNOWLEDGED SIGHTING TFC AND CONTINUED. THE CTLR TOLD US THE ACFT WAS GOING THROUGH OUR ALT. IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT, BUT WE KEPT AN EYE ON ACR X. LATER ATC CALLED THE TFC AT 11-12 O'CLOCK AND 3 MI. AGAIN WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE SAW THE TFC. NEVER WERE WE REQUESTED TO KEEP TFC IN SIGHT FOR VIS AVOIDANCE, BUT IT BECAME MORE AND MORE APPARENT THAT THE CTLR'S INFO WAS WRONG--ACR X WAS BELOW US, CLBING AND ON A COLLISION COURSE. WE RAPIDLY BANKED RIGHT TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION. IN A SUBSEQUENT PHONE CONFERENCE CALL BTWN THE ACR X CAPT, ME AND THE HOUSTON APCH CTL ROOM SUPVR THAT SAME NIGHT, ACR X CAPT CONFIRMED THAT HE SAW US IMMEDIATELY WHEN WE WERE POINTED OUT TO HIM AND HE ACCEPTED A CLRNC TO CLB, REF US, BUT THAT EVEN AS HE BEGAN TURNING, HE 'COULDN'T GET RELATIVE MOTION' ON US--THAT WE STAYED IN 1 SPOT ON THE WIND SCREEN UNTIL HE TOO DETECTED AN IMMINENT COLLISION COURSE, AT WHICH TIME HE ORDERED HIS F/O (WHO WAS FLYING) TO 'MISS HIM.' ACR X ALSO BANKED HARD RIGHT TO AVOID COLLISION. ATC RADAR TAPES SHOW THE ACFT CAME WITHIN .4248 MI (2500') HORIZ AND 200' VERT OF EACH OTHER. WE THINK IT WAS LESS THAN 1000'. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 124506: AS WE LEVELED AT 5600', WE WERE ADVISED OF TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK, OPP DIRECTION, DSNDING TO 6000'. THE CAPT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT. DEP THEN CLRED US TO 'MAINTAIN VIS WITH THE LGT, CLB AND MAINTAIN 15000'.' THE CAPT ACKNOWLEDGED AND I COMMENCED THE CLB. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 124439: AN INVESTIGATION ENSUED AND A SYS ERROR WAS DECLARED AGAINST ME, EVEN THOUGH THE PLT OF ACR X SAW THE TFC AND ACCEPTED THE CLRNC TO MAINTAIN VIS SEP WITH ACR Y. THERE IS NO ACTION PENDING AGAINST THE PLT OF ACR X, EVEN THOUGH HE CAME TOO CLOSE TO ACR Y. IF THE PLTS CANNOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, I PROPOSE THAT ALL VIS SEP PROCS BE REMOVED FROM THE ATC MANUAL. THE PLTS DON'T WANT CTLRS 'IN THE COCKPIT,' I.E., 'LET US FLY OUR AIRPLANES;' HOWEVER, THEY WANT SOMEONE TO BE THEIR SCAPEGOAT WHEN THEY EXERCISE INCORRECT OR IMPROPER PROCS.

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.