Narrative:

[I] diverted from ntu to ZZZ on a low fuel profile after ntu's single runway was fouled on a day with ceilings down around 400 ft and 3/4-1.5nm visibility. On the climb profile [I] was passed a different squawk code. Upon switch to center frequency it was apparent that center was unaware of the situation in progress. Additionally; [I] was on the wrong frequency; the frequency that was passed from approach. [I] communicated [my] situation and intentions. On the climb with the rate of ascent and proximity to a commuter airliner TCAS was set off. [I] arrested [my] ascent and descended to the center requested altitude of FL260 and remained there for the duration of the transit contrary to the aircraft's max conserve bingo fuel profile. In conclusion the lessons to take away are a function of communication and intentions. Aircraft and controllers need to clearly and quickly establishing an understanding of the situation in progress and what is needed to cope with the situation so that all parties; controllers; aircraft; and any potential conflicts in the airspace may sooner rather than later take the appropriate and timely action. Additionally; perhaps changing an aircraft's squawk code may not have been the best answer with traffic in the vicinity and an aggressive climb for fuel requested. Lastly; just because you are a priority aircraft does not necessarily mean you 'own the road'; successful conclusion to situations are often a team effort. However; clearing your flight path with onboard radar; an aggressive visual look out; while communicating the situation will continue to be required until all parties have total situational awareness.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Military Fighter pilot reported an airborne conflict occurred during a diversion for a low fuel situation.

Narrative: [I] diverted from NTU to ZZZ on a low fuel profile after NTU's single runway was fouled on a day with ceilings down around 400 ft and 3/4-1.5nm visibility. On the climb profile [I] was passed a different squawk code. Upon switch to Center frequency it was apparent that Center was unaware of the situation in progress. Additionally; [I] was on the wrong frequency; the frequency that was passed from Approach. [I] communicated [my] situation and intentions. On the climb with the rate of ascent and proximity to a commuter airliner TCAS was set off. [I] arrested [my] ascent and descended to the Center requested altitude of FL260 and remained there for the duration of the transit contrary to the aircraft's max conserve bingo fuel profile. In conclusion the lessons to take away are a function of communication and intentions. Aircraft and controllers need to clearly and quickly establishing an understanding of the situation in progress and what is needed to cope with the situation so that all parties; controllers; aircraft; and any potential conflicts in the airspace may sooner rather than later take the appropriate and timely action. Additionally; perhaps changing an aircraft's squawk code may not have been the best answer with traffic in the vicinity and an aggressive climb for fuel requested. Lastly; just because you are a priority aircraft does not necessarily mean you 'own the road'; successful conclusion to situations are often a team effort. However; clearing your flight path with onboard RADAR; an aggressive visual look out; while communicating the situation will continue to be required until all parties have total situational awareness.

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.