Narrative:

Air carrier medium large transport X was en route from ewr to yul. We were level at 10000' with an IAS of about 280 KTS, northeast of lga on a radar vector heading of 060 degrees. The flight conditions were smooth, the sky was clear, and the first officer was flying the aircraft. ATC advised us of some traffic which passed below and behind us from right to left. Then, I noticed what appeared to a small transport type aircraft at our 1-2 O'clock position, range about 6 mi. I pointed it out to the F/east and we both were aware of the traffic but not concerned about it. The aircraft appeared to be close to our altitude, and headed in generally the same northeast direction. However, it was difficult to estimate the actual altitude and flight path. Furthermore, we had no reason to be concerned because our impression was that an aircraft of that type operating there would be controled and we would be provided sep from it. Otherwise, we assumed that we would have been advised by ATC that the traffic was VFR and that sep was not being provided. Nonetheless, to the point, ATC had not even mentioned the traffic. As we were starting to converge on the traffic to the point where we were both starting to become aware that something was going on, we received a climb clearance and the first officer initiated a climb to I believe 15000'. At that point, ATC advised us, to the best of my memory, that we had light transport Y at 12 O'clock and about 2 mi, northbound. At that point, I realized that we were going to pass directly over the target and also that we had probably been at the same altitude. As we passed over air carrier light transport Y, I queried ATC about the altitude of the aircraft and the controller replied that the aircraft was 10200' on the mode C readout. At that point, I noted that we were only leaving 10700' and realized that we had not been provided with the sep from the aircraft that I expected. I had no idea why and asked the controller what was going on, and he replied simply that air carrier light transport Y was VFR. I commented that I thought that the procedure was inappropriate and asked for the phone # of the center which they promptly provided. On arrival in yul, I called ny TRACON and spoke with the sector supervisor. The supervisor and I had a long conversation and it was clear to both of us that there are misunderstandings between what the controllers expect pilots to do in circumstances wherein IFR aircraft encounter VFR aircraft, and also in what pilots are expecting from controllers. Also, there may possibly be some weaknesses in the ATC procedures for handling VFR/IFR mix aircraft in environments such as we were operating in. The supervisor made it clear that ATC expects that any time ATC passes VFR traffic to an IFR flight and the crew states that the traffic is in sight (in a VFR/IFR environment), then it immediately becomes the crew's responsibility to provide their own sep from the target aircraft. It was also made clear that there is no requirement for ATC to advise the crew that the target is VFR. Hence the problem is, how is the crew supposed to know which traffic is VFR and not being separated from them, and which aircraft are IFR and are being separated from them. Furthermore, although experience has taught that ATC often does provide the IFR aircraft 'courtesy' sep from known VFR traffic (which this was), obviously this leads to the difficult problem of knowing when you are expected to avoid someone on your own (west/O being told, 'maintain visibility sep,' which is an IFR procedure), and when you are not. The environment above 10000' is very difficult in that visually assessing the relative velocity vectors of the target aircraft and your aircraft is difficult, giving the background against which the aircraft is seen and, of course, the very high true airspds at which the aircraft operate. From the standpoint of the ny TRACON, I understand that they do not consider this is any way to be a near miss, since no sep standard was being applied and hence none could be violated. The only sep requirement between that aircraft and air carrier X, it turned out, was that we did not hit each other, and since we did not, no event occurred. However, from our standpoint, since we had no idea that the aircraft was VFR and that no sep was being provided, we considered this to be a loss of separation event. In further discussion with the supervisor, I expressed the concern that if each crew of IFR aircraft was expected to provide its own sep whenever operating below 18000' and with other aircraft in sight, conceivably the aircraft the crew assumes is or are the VFR target(south) may actually be IFR aircraft and the avoidance maneuvers made could potentially result in a loss of sep with other aircraft. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter admitted that he had voiced his complaints of the present system when he was still emotionally upset from the near miss. He admitted that he is unable to provide a better solution to see and avoid. What is interesting is that, similar to many other such encounters, this near midair collision occurred in close proximity to a TCA boundary.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BETWEEN ACR MLG X AND COMMUTER LTT Y NEAR N90 TCA.

Narrative: ACR MLG X WAS ENRTE FROM EWR TO YUL. WE WERE LEVEL AT 10000' WITH AN IAS OF ABOUT 280 KTS, NE OF LGA ON A RADAR VECTOR HDG OF 060 DEGS. THE FLT CONDITIONS WERE SMOOTH, THE SKY WAS CLR, AND THE F/O WAS FLYING THE ACFT. ATC ADVISED US OF SOME TFC WHICH PASSED BELOW AND BEHIND US FROM RIGHT TO LEFT. THEN, I NOTICED WHAT APPEARED TO A SMALL TRANSPORT TYPE ACFT AT OUR 1-2 O'CLOCK POS, RANGE ABOUT 6 MI. I POINTED IT OUT TO THE F/E AND WE BOTH WERE AWARE OF THE TFC BUT NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT. THE ACFT APPEARED TO BE CLOSE TO OUR ALT, AND HEADED IN GENERALLY THE SAME NE DIRECTION. HOWEVER, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO ESTIMATE THE ACTUAL ALT AND FLT PATH. FURTHERMORE, WE HAD NO REASON TO BE CONCERNED BECAUSE OUR IMPRESSION WAS THAT AN ACFT OF THAT TYPE OPERATING THERE WOULD BE CTLED AND WE WOULD BE PROVIDED SEP FROM IT. OTHERWISE, WE ASSUMED THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY ATC THAT THE TFC WAS VFR AND THAT SEP WAS NOT BEING PROVIDED. NONETHELESS, TO THE POINT, ATC HAD NOT EVEN MENTIONED THE TFC. AS WE WERE STARTING TO CONVERGE ON THE TFC TO THE POINT WHERE WE WERE BOTH STARTING TO BECOME AWARE THAT SOMETHING WAS GOING ON, WE RECEIVED A CLB CLRNC AND THE F/O INITIATED A CLB TO I BELIEVE 15000'. AT THAT POINT, ATC ADVISED US, TO THE BEST OF MY MEMORY, THAT WE HAD LTT Y AT 12 O'CLOCK AND ABOUT 2 MI, NBND. AT THAT POINT, I REALIZED THAT WE WERE GOING TO PASS DIRECTLY OVER THE TARGET AND ALSO THAT WE HAD PROBABLY BEEN AT THE SAME ALT. AS WE PASSED OVER ACR LTT Y, I QUERIED ATC ABOUT THE ALT OF THE ACFT AND THE CTLR REPLIED THAT THE ACFT WAS 10200' ON THE MODE C READOUT. AT THAT POINT, I NOTED THAT WE WERE ONLY LEAVING 10700' AND REALIZED THAT WE HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE SEP FROM THE ACFT THAT I EXPECTED. I HAD NO IDEA WHY AND ASKED THE CTLR WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND HE REPLIED SIMPLY THAT ACR LTT Y WAS VFR. I COMMENTED THAT I THOUGHT THAT THE PROC WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND ASKED FOR THE PHONE # OF THE CENTER WHICH THEY PROMPTLY PROVIDED. ON ARR IN YUL, I CALLED NY TRACON AND SPOKE WITH THE SECTOR SUPVR. THE SUPVR AND I HAD A LONG CONVERSATION AND IT WAS CLR TO BOTH OF US THAT THERE ARE MISUNDERSTANDINGS BTWN WHAT THE CTLRS EXPECT PLTS TO DO IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREIN IFR ACFT ENCOUNTER VFR ACFT, AND ALSO IN WHAT PLTS ARE EXPECTING FROM CTLRS. ALSO, THERE MAY POSSIBLY BE SOME WEAKNESSES IN THE ATC PROCS FOR HANDLING VFR/IFR MIX ACFT IN ENVIRONMENTS SUCH AS WE WERE OPERATING IN. THE SUPVR MADE IT CLR THAT ATC EXPECTS THAT ANY TIME ATC PASSES VFR TFC TO AN IFR FLT AND THE CREW STATES THAT THE TFC IS IN SIGHT (IN A VFR/IFR ENVIRONMENT), THEN IT IMMEDIATELY BECOMES THE CREW'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN SEP FROM THE TARGET ACFT. IT WAS ALSO MADE CLR THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR ATC TO ADVISE THE CREW THAT THE TARGET IS VFR. HENCE THE PROB IS, HOW IS THE CREW SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH TFC IS VFR AND NOT BEING SEPARATED FROM THEM, AND WHICH ACFT ARE IFR AND ARE BEING SEPARATED FROM THEM. FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT THAT ATC OFTEN DOES PROVIDE THE IFR ACFT 'COURTESY' SEP FROM KNOWN VFR TFC (WHICH THIS WAS), OBVIOUSLY THIS LEADS TO THE DIFFICULT PROB OF KNOWING WHEN YOU ARE EXPECTED TO AVOID SOMEONE ON YOUR OWN (W/O BEING TOLD, 'MAINTAIN VIS SEP,' WHICH IS AN IFR PROC), AND WHEN YOU ARE NOT. THE ENVIRONMENT ABOVE 10000' IS VERY DIFFICULT IN THAT VISUALLY ASSESSING THE RELATIVE VELOCITY VECTORS OF THE TARGET ACFT AND YOUR ACFT IS DIFFICULT, GIVING THE BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH THE ACFT IS SEEN AND, OF COURSE, THE VERY HIGH TRUE AIRSPDS AT WHICH THE ACFT OPERATE. FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE NY TRACON, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DO NOT CONSIDER THIS IS ANY WAY TO BE A NEAR MISS, SINCE NO SEP STANDARD WAS BEING APPLIED AND HENCE NONE COULD BE VIOLATED. THE ONLY SEP REQUIREMENT BTWN THAT ACFT AND ACR X, IT TURNED OUT, WAS THAT WE DID NOT HIT EACH OTHER, AND SINCE WE DID NOT, NO EVENT OCCURRED. HOWEVER, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, SINCE WE HAD NO IDEA THAT THE ACFT WAS VFR AND THAT NO SEP WAS BEING PROVIDED, WE CONSIDERED THIS TO BE A LOSS OF SEPARATION EVENT. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE SUPVR, I EXPRESSED THE CONCERN THAT IF EACH CREW OF IFR ACFT WAS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE ITS OWN SEP WHENEVER OPERATING BELOW 18000' AND WITH OTHER ACFT IN SIGHT, CONCEIVABLY THE ACFT THE CREW ASSUMES IS OR ARE THE VFR TARGET(S) MAY ACTUALLY BE IFR ACFT AND THE AVOIDANCE MANEUVERS MADE COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN A LOSS OF SEP WITH OTHER ACFT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR ADMITTED THAT HE HAD VOICED HIS COMPLAINTS OF THE PRESENT SYS WHEN HE WAS STILL EMOTIONALLY UPSET FROM THE NEAR MISS. HE ADMITTED THAT HE IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE A BETTER SOLUTION TO SEE AND AVOID. WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT, SIMILAR TO MANY OTHER SUCH ENCOUNTERS, THIS NMAC OCCURRED IN CLOSE PROX TO A TCA BOUNDARY.

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.