Narrative:

Just after takeoff and on assigned runway heading (270) from runway 27 at mlb, handed off to departure control. Estimate our altitude at 2500' climbing to assigned 5000. Departure control issued warning 'VFR traffic 12 O'clock indicates 3600' at 3 mi. I acknowledge, 'no contact...looking', and scan in front for traffic. First officer (flying) reduces climb rate to help look over nose and delay flight through 3600'. First officer sees traffic first about 5 seconds after notification from departure and takes evasive action by banking aircraft to left. It appears that traffic small aircraft does same. Collision avoided by marginal error at 3600. I reported to the departure controller that we had a near miss. He acknowledged that there was nothing else he could do other than what he did (giving us VFR traffic advisory). Handed off to next sector controller. My concern is that there does not presently exist an arsa at melbourne airport, while commercial traffic is on the increase. The VFR pilot was not at fault for being at 3600' about 3 mi from the airport because he was out of the air traffic area. The controller was not at fault for providing separation because the VFR traffic was not under his control. So we were operating under the see and be seen rules. However, trying to establish and maintain contact with a light aircraft when doing 250 KTS in a climb attitude (high pitch) with only 3 mi to go was a tough assignment, and fortunately for us one that we barely managed. My question is this: 1) were air traffic area's designed to contain this from happening, or do we need to increase air traffic area's to say 5000' where fast commercial jet traffic are operating? 2) could melbourne need an arsa established? 3) if none of the above can be instituted, can we modify standard departures from melbourne to include a level off at 2000 to avoid conflict with VFR traffic in close to the airport above the air traffic area (3000)? As the trend continues for more and more medium large transport and forthcoming advanced mlgs to operate out of smaller fields originally intended for civil general aviation aircraft, I think we must now consider this.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX ACR-MLG GA-SMA JUST ABOVE MLB ATA.

Narrative: JUST AFTER TKOF AND ON ASSIGNED RWY HDG (270) FROM RWY 27 AT MLB, HANDED OFF TO DEP CTL. ESTIMATE OUR ALT AT 2500' CLIMBING TO ASSIGNED 5000. DEP CTL ISSUED WARNING 'VFR TFC 12 O'CLOCK INDICATES 3600' AT 3 MI. I ACKNOWLEDGE, 'NO CONTACT...LOOKING', AND SCAN IN FRONT FOR TFC. F/O (FLYING) REDUCES CLIMB RATE TO HELP LOOK OVER NOSE AND DELAY FLT THROUGH 3600'. F/O SEES TFC FIRST ABOUT 5 SECONDS AFTER NOTIFICATION FROM DEP AND TAKES EVASIVE ACTION BY BANKING ACFT TO LEFT. IT APPEARS THAT TFC SMA DOES SAME. COLLISION AVOIDED BY MARGINAL ERROR AT 3600. I REPORTED TO THE DEP CTLR THAT WE HAD A NEAR MISS. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE HE COULD DO OTHER THAN WHAT HE DID (GIVING US VFR TFC ADVISORY). HANDED OFF TO NEXT SECTOR CTLR. MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE DOES NOT PRESENTLY EXIST AN ARSA AT MELBOURNE ARPT, WHILE COMMERCIAL TFC IS ON THE INCREASE. THE VFR PLT WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR BEING AT 3600' ABOUT 3 MI FROM THE ARPT BECAUSE HE WAS OUT OF THE ATA. THE CTLR WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR PROVIDING SEPARATION BECAUSE THE VFR TFC WAS NOT UNDER HIS CTL. SO WE WERE OPERATING UNDER THE SEE AND BE SEEN RULES. HOWEVER, TRYING TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN CONTACT WITH A LIGHT ACFT WHEN DOING 250 KTS IN A CLIMB ATTITUDE (HIGH PITCH) WITH ONLY 3 MI TO GO WAS A TOUGH ASSIGNMENT, AND FORTUNATELY FOR US ONE THAT WE BARELY MANAGED. MY QUESTION IS THIS: 1) WERE ATA'S DESIGNED TO CONTAIN THIS FROM HAPPENING, OR DO WE NEED TO INCREASE ATA'S TO SAY 5000' WHERE FAST COMMERCIAL JET TFC ARE OPERATING? 2) COULD MELBOURNE NEED AN ARSA ESTABLISHED? 3) IF NONE OF THE ABOVE CAN BE INSTITUTED, CAN WE MODIFY STANDARD DEPS FROM MELBOURNE TO INCLUDE A LEVEL OFF AT 2000 TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH VFR TFC IN CLOSE TO THE ARPT ABOVE THE ATA (3000)? AS THE TREND CONTINUES FOR MORE AND MORE MLG AND FORTHCOMING ADVANCED MLGS TO OPERATE OUT OF SMALLER FIELDS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR CIVIL GENERAL AVIATION ACFT, I THINK WE MUST NOW CONSIDER THIS.

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.