Narrative:

I am an air traffic controller. On the above date I was on a familiarization flight on the medium large transport, which was TCAS equipped. In level flight at 11000' on the rockdale 5 arrival, TCAS issued, 'traffic.' traffic was depicted on TCAS at 12 O'clock and 6 mi, 1100' below our altitude. At 3 mi TCAS issued the same traffic warning. At 1 mi the TCAS issued a conflict resolution to this traffic that was telling the pilot to descend. The TCAS display showed the traffic still 1100' below our altitude. The captain stated that this was not the first time he had received a bad conflict resolution from TCAS. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter provided types aircraft involved, and said that the aircraft at 10000' was on V299, not landing at bdl. Reporter called TRACON after landing and got more information from approach controller. Traffic was not issued to the medium large transport since there was 1000' sep and controller was busy with other aircraft. Traffic was issued to the small aircraft. Reporter did not see other aircraft due to clouds incident occurred about 25 mi from VOR. Altitude of other aircraft showed up on TCAS as '-10,' '-11,' and '-12.' pilot had other false alarms with TCAS and did not comply with TCAS advisory as company policies mandates. Reporter thinks that the flight strip should indicate whether an aircraft is TCAS equipped or not to alert the controller. Reporter also states that controllers are confused when pilots of TCAS equipped aircraft report traffic in sight. In one incident, reporter issued traffic to an air carrier and pilot reported traffic in sight. Report thought pilot meant visually, but pilot only saw aircraft on TCAS scope. Reporter thinks this may cause a problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TCAS II ON ACR MLG GAVE A TA FOR TRAFFIC 1100' BELOW THE MLG, THEN LATER GAVE AN RA TO DESCENT. INCIDENT REPORT BY CTLR ON AN OBSERVATION FLT, BUT THE CAPT SAID THAT, 'THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME HE HAD RECEIVED A BAD CONFLICT RESOLUTION FROM TCAS.'

Narrative: I AM AN AIR TFC CTLR. ON THE ABOVE DATE I WAS ON A FAMILIARIZATION FLT ON THE MLG, WHICH WAS TCAS EQUIPPED. IN LEVEL FLT AT 11000' ON THE ROCKDALE 5 ARR, TCAS ISSUED, 'TFC.' TFC WAS DEPICTED ON TCAS AT 12 O'CLOCK AND 6 MI, 1100' BELOW OUR ALT. AT 3 MI TCAS ISSUED THE SAME TFC WARNING. AT 1 MI THE TCAS ISSUED A CONFLICT RESOLUTION TO THIS TFC THAT WAS TELLING THE PLT TO DSND. THE TCAS DISPLAY SHOWED THE TFC STILL 1100' BELOW OUR ALT. THE CAPT STATED THAT THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME HE HAD RECEIVED A BAD CONFLICT RESOLUTION FROM TCAS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR PROVIDED TYPES ACFT INVOLVED, AND SAID THAT THE ACFT AT 10000' WAS ON V299, NOT LNDG AT BDL. RPTR CALLED TRACON AFTER LNDG AND GOT MORE INFO FROM APCH CTLR. TFC WAS NOT ISSUED TO THE MLG SINCE THERE WAS 1000' SEP AND CTLR WAS BUSY WITH OTHER ACFT. TFC WAS ISSUED TO THE SMA. RPTR DID NOT SEE OTHER ACFT DUE TO CLOUDS INCIDENT OCCURRED ABOUT 25 MI FROM VOR. ALT OF OTHER ACFT SHOWED UP ON TCAS AS '-10,' '-11,' AND '-12.' PLT HAD OTHER FALSE ALARMS WITH TCAS AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH TCAS ADVISORY AS COMPANY POLICIES MANDATES. RPTR THINKS THAT THE FLT STRIP SHOULD INDICATE WHETHER AN ACFT IS TCAS EQUIPPED OR NOT TO ALERT THE CTLR. RPTR ALSO STATES THAT CTLRS ARE CONFUSED WHEN PLTS OF TCAS EQUIPPED ACFT RPT TFC IN SIGHT. IN ONE INCIDENT, RPTR ISSUED TFC TO AN ACR AND PLT RPTED TFC IN SIGHT. RPT THOUGHT PLT MEANT VISUALLY, BUT PLT ONLY SAW ACFT ON TCAS SCOPE. RPTR THINKS THIS MAY CAUSE A PROB.

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.