Narrative:

Air carrier flight large transport ord to roc aug/tue/92. ATC controller from buf approach control seemed harried, rushed and confused, rushing his radio transmissions and not responding in a timely manner to our queries to verify our clearance and altitude assignment -- generally he seemed overworked! We were level at 11000 ft (last assigned altitude) approximately 20 NM nne of buf VOR on the victor airway to roc, ny. We were in IFR conditions (with no visibility) our TCASII gave an 'RA' and directed a 'climb, climb.' I climbed to 11500 ft and TCASII advised 'clear of conflict.' concurrently my first officer advised ATC of our climb due to the TCASII instruction. TCASII indicated 'intruder' below and behind our aircraft. The ATC controller said that the other aircraft was cleared to 1000 ft (1000 ft below our altitude) but was climbing at a high rate of climb causing our TCASII to 'go off.' he then cleared us back down to 11000 ft. My concerns are: that the controller should have advised us of the situation before the occurrence, i.e., that the other aircraft was climbing excessively quick to 1000 ft. Also, controllers should be aware of our equipment on board such as being TCASII equipped. This is 'designated' when a TCASII aircraft is filed on an IFR flight plan. In this case (and as far as I can determine) there was no real conflict since the other aircraft leveled off at 1000 ft (according to the controller). However, due to the circumstances (described above) our TCASII sensed a threat and directed us to climb. This could have caused another conflict in perhaps a different situation. All could have been avoided if the controller was aware that we were TCASII equipped, told the other aircraft to reduce rate of climb, and advised us that other aircraft was climbing at an excessive rate to 10000 ft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALTDEV ALT EXCURSION DURING FLC PLT RESPONSE TO TCASII RA.

Narrative: ACR FLT LGT ORD TO ROC AUG/TUE/92. ATC CTLR FROM BUF APCH CTL SEEMED HARRIED, RUSHED AND CONFUSED, RUSHING HIS RADIO TRANSMISSIONS AND NOT RESPONDING IN A TIMELY MANNER TO OUR QUERIES TO VERIFY OUR CLRNC AND ALT ASSIGNMENT -- GENERALLY HE SEEMED OVERWORKED! WE WERE LEVEL AT 11000 FT (LAST ASSIGNED ALT) APPROX 20 NM NNE OF BUF VOR ON THE VICTOR AIRWAY TO ROC, NY. WE WERE IN IFR CONDITIONS (WITH NO VISIBILITY) OUR TCASII GAVE AN 'RA' AND DIRECTED A 'CLB, CLB.' I CLBED TO 11500 FT AND TCASII ADVISED 'CLR OF CONFLICT.' CONCURRENTLY MY FO ADVISED ATC OF OUR CLB DUE TO THE TCASII INSTRUCTION. TCASII INDICATED 'INTRUDER' BELOW AND BEHIND OUR ACFT. THE ATC CTLR SAID THAT THE OTHER ACFT WAS CLRED TO 1000 FT (1000 FT BELOW OUR ALT) BUT WAS CLBING AT A HIGH RATE OF CLB CAUSING OUR TCASII TO 'GO OFF.' HE THEN CLRED US BACK DOWN TO 11000 FT. MY CONCERNS ARE: THAT THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE ADVISED US OF THE SITUATION BEFORE THE OCCURRENCE, I.E., THAT THE OTHER ACFT WAS CLBING EXCESSIVELY QUICK TO 1000 FT. ALSO, CTLRS SHOULD BE AWARE OF OUR EQUIP ON BOARD SUCH AS BEING TCASII EQUIPPED. THIS IS 'DESIGNATED' WHEN A TCASII ACFT IS FILED ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. IN THIS CASE (AND AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE) THERE WAS NO REAL CONFLICT SINCE THE OTHER ACFT LEVELED OFF AT 1000 FT (ACCORDING TO THE CTLR). HOWEVER, DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES (DESCRIBED ABOVE) OUR TCASII SENSED A THREAT AND DIRECTED US TO CLB. THIS COULD HAVE CAUSED ANOTHER CONFLICT IN PERHAPS A DIFFERENT SITUATION. ALL COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE CTLR WAS AWARE THAT WE WERE TCASII EQUIPPED, TOLD THE OTHER ACFT TO REDUCE RATE OF CLB, AND ADVISED US THAT OTHER ACFT WAS CLBING AT AN EXCESSIVE RATE TO 10000 FT.

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.