Narrative:

Cleared runway heading (310 degrees), maintain 10000'. Cleared for takeoff. Normal transfer to departure frequency. As we were passing through 3000' at about 3500 FPM, we were advised to maintain 3000'. An aggressive transition to descend back to 3000' resulted in a maximum altitude of around 3500'. During this maneuver the traffic at 1 O'clock was clearly visible to us as well as our concerned passenger. I was not concerned that there was any real danger at this point, but the traffic appeared to be less than 4000' MSL as it passed overhead. The pilot of our conflicting traffic complained and the controller implied that the conflict was due to us not checking in on the frequency soon enough. We were vectored to heading 360 degrees, and due to the excitement and confusion and lack of confidence in the controller, I climbed to about 3600' before we realized we were still assigned 3000'. I'm very concerned that we were released IFR directly into the path of another aircraft. I think the better solution once the conflict was observed would have been an advisory of the location of the traffic, and an accelerated climb for us to clear above the traffic and a thank you for our cooperation. The implication that we failed by not checking in on time is very inappropriate and we deserve an apology and the assurance that the complaining pilot of the traffic has had an explanation of the real cause of the problem. Our passenger deserve a chance to regain confidence they may have lost in their crew and the traffic system.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CGA CAME IN CLOSE PROX TO ANOTHER ACFT AFTER DEP.

Narrative: CLRED RWY HDG (310 DEGS), MAINTAIN 10000'. CLRED FOR TKOF. NORMAL TRANSFER TO DEP FREQ. AS WE WERE PASSING THROUGH 3000' AT ABOUT 3500 FPM, WE WERE ADVISED TO MAINTAIN 3000'. AN AGGRESSIVE TRANSITION TO DSND BACK TO 3000' RESULTED IN A MAX ALT OF AROUND 3500'. DURING THIS MANEUVER THE TFC AT 1 O'CLOCK WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE TO US AS WELL AS OUR CONCERNED PAX. I WAS NOT CONCERNED THAT THERE WAS ANY REAL DANGER AT THIS POINT, BUT THE TFC APPEARED TO BE LESS THAN 4000' MSL AS IT PASSED OVERHEAD. THE PLT OF OUR CONFLICTING TFC COMPLAINED AND THE CTLR IMPLIED THAT THE CONFLICT WAS DUE TO US NOT CHKING IN ON THE FREQ SOON ENOUGH. WE WERE VECTORED TO HDG 360 DEGS, AND DUE TO THE EXCITEMENT AND CONFUSION AND LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN THE CTLR, I CLBED TO ABOUT 3600' BEFORE WE REALIZED WE WERE STILL ASSIGNED 3000'. I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT WE WERE RELEASED IFR DIRECTLY INTO THE PATH OF ANOTHER ACFT. I THINK THE BETTER SOLUTION ONCE THE CONFLICT WAS OBSERVED WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ADVISORY OF THE LOCATION OF THE TFC, AND AN ACCELERATED CLB FOR US TO CLR ABOVE THE TFC AND A THANK YOU FOR OUR COOPERATION. THE IMPLICATION THAT WE FAILED BY NOT CHKING IN ON TIME IS VERY INAPPROPRIATE AND WE DESERVE AN APOLOGY AND THE ASSURANCE THAT THE COMPLAINING PLT OF THE TFC HAS HAD AN EXPLANATION OF THE REAL CAUSE OF THE PROB. OUR PAX DESERVE A CHANCE TO REGAIN CONFIDENCE THEY MAY HAVE LOST IN THEIR CREW AND THE TFC SYS.

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.