Crj-200 flight crew reported a traffic conflict that initially resulted in less than optimum guidanc...

Attributes
ACN	1363709
Time
Date	201605
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Climb
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Cruise
Component
Aircraft Component	Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Person 2
Function	Pilot Flying First Officer
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude

Narrative:

Climbing out of ZZZ through approximately 5;000 ft MSL for 17;000 ft MSL. ATC advised us of traffic at our 12 o'clock; a cessna at 9;500 MSL; VFR. We responded that we were looking for the traffic. Unable to get the traffic in sight; ATC had us stop the climb at 9;000 ft MSL. We leveled at 9;000 ft MSL with the autopilot on. I told the first officer we may get a TCAS RA and to be ready. We kept searching for the traffic but with the haze we did not get the traffic in sight. We then got a TCAS TA; a few seconds later we got a TCAS RA to 'climb; climb'. We disconnected the autopilot and began a climb per the SOP. We advised ATC that we were climbing in response to a RA. She advised the traffic was directly above us. At approx. 9;300 ft MSL the RA switched from climb to 'descend; descend'. We then reduced power and descended to 9;000 ft MSL. As we began the descent; we got visual contact of the traffic that was passing off our right and was no factor. We advised ATC the traffic was in sight. She then climbed us to 17;000 ft MSL. We continued the flight as normal.the restricted visibility due to haze and the inability to get the traffic insight visually. Another factor I believe is the TCAS gave us a RA initially of 'climb; climb' because the other aircraft was not TCAS equipped. When our TCAS saw the other aircraft go from 9;500 to 9;400; it wanted us to climb above him since he was descending into us. With the other traffic only 500 ft above our current altitude of 9;000 ft; we could have asked ATC for a lower altitude or a turn off course. Also; if the other aircraft were TCAS equipped he would have been issued an opposite RA from ours.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-200 flight crew reported a traffic conflict that initially resulted in less than optimum guidance from the TCAS system presumably due to the fact the other aircraft was not TCAS equipped.

Narrative: Climbing out of ZZZ through approximately 5;000 ft MSL for 17;000 ft MSL. ATC advised us of traffic at our 12 o'clock; a Cessna at 9;500 MSL; VFR. We responded that we were looking for the traffic. Unable to get the traffic in sight; ATC had us stop the climb at 9;000 ft MSL. We leveled at 9;000 ft MSL with the autopilot on. I told the FO we may get a TCAS RA and to be ready. We kept searching for the traffic but with the haze we did not get the traffic in sight. We then got a TCAS TA; a few seconds later we got a TCAS RA to 'climb; climb'. We disconnected the autopilot and began a climb per the SOP. We advised ATC that we were climbing in response to a RA. She advised the traffic was directly above us. At approx. 9;300 ft MSL the RA switched from climb to 'descend; descend'. We then reduced power and descended to 9;000 ft MSL. As we began the descent; we got visual contact of the traffic that was passing off our right and was no factor. We advised ATC the traffic was in sight. She then climbed us to 17;000 ft MSL. We continued the flight as normal.The restricted visibility due to haze and the inability to get the traffic insight visually. Another factor I believe is the TCAS gave us a RA initially of 'climb; climb' because the other aircraft was not TCAS equipped. When our TCAS saw the other aircraft go from 9;500 to 9;400; it wanted us to climb above him since he was descending into us. With the other traffic only 500 ft above our current altitude of 9;000 ft; we could have asked ATC for a lower altitude or a turn off course. Also; if the other aircraft were TCAS equipped he would have been issued an opposite RA from ours.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Crj-200 flight crew reported a traffic conflict that initially resulted in less than optimum guidance from the TCAS system presumably due to the fact the other aircraft was not TCAS equipped.