Air carrier X TCASII RA from VFR small aircraft Y in TCA. TCASII disruptive to ATC system.

Attributes
ACN	241003
Time
Date	199305
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : mia
State Reference	FL
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 3500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : mia tower : mci
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	other
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : departure
Qualification	controller : radar
ASRS Report	241003
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took evasive action
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Miss Distance	horizontal : 0 vertical : 500
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Air carrier X departed sebound assigned 3000 ft. Small aircraft Y was holding southeast of the airport at 3500 ft. Separation was 500 ft which is legal IFR/VFR separation. Traffic was issued to air carrier X. As air carrier X was acknowledging, TCASII was heard in backgnd 'traffic, traffic.' after aircraft diverged, a climb was issued to air carrier X. Air carrier X replied with 'that traffic was too close.' I again told air carrier X that 500 ft VFR/IFR separation was used and offered a phone number for further discussion. No reply was received. Again, I asked air carrier X if he wanted the phone number. Air carrier X replied that 'he didn't have a problem with the 500 ft separation, it's just that the 'machine' was going crazy!' TCASII will always issue an RA when using 500 ft VFR/IFR vertical separation, and diverging heading/delete vertical separation rules. These are accepted separation standards that have been used for yrs. TCASII was supposed to be invisible to ATC. I disagree. When a controller can't use accepted separation standards without a pilot getting an RA, the equipment is not invisible. TCASII should not be in service. It's disruptive and dangerous.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X TCASII RA FROM VFR SMA Y IN TCA. TCASII DISRUPTIVE TO ATC SYS.

Narrative: ACR X DEPARTED SEBOUND ASSIGNED 3000 FT. SMA Y WAS HOLDING SE OF THE ARPT AT 3500 FT. SEPARATION WAS 500 FT WHICH IS LEGAL IFR/VFR SEPARATION. TFC WAS ISSUED TO ACR X. AS ACR X WAS ACKNOWLEDGING, TCASII WAS HEARD IN BACKGND 'TFC, TFC.' AFTER ACFT DIVERGED, A CLB WAS ISSUED TO ACR X. ACR X REPLIED WITH 'THAT TFC WAS TOO CLOSE.' I AGAIN TOLD ACR X THAT 500 FT VFR/IFR SEPARATION WAS USED AND OFFERED A PHONE NUMBER FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED. AGAIN, I ASKED ACR X IF HE WANTED THE PHONE NUMBER. ACR X REPLIED THAT 'HE DIDN'T HAVE A PROB WITH THE 500 FT SEPARATION, IT'S JUST THAT THE 'MACHINE' WAS GOING CRAZY!' TCASII WILL ALWAYS ISSUE AN RA WHEN USING 500 FT VFR/IFR VERT SEPARATION, AND DIVERGING HDG/DELETE VERT SEPARATION RULES. THESE ARE ACCEPTED SEPARATION STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR YRS. TCASII WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INVISIBLE TO ATC. I DISAGREE. WHEN A CTLR CAN'T USE ACCEPTED SEPARATION STANDARDS WITHOUT A PLT GETTING AN RA, THE EQUIP IS NOT INVISIBLE. TCASII SHOULD NOT BE IN SVC. IT'S DISRUPTIVE AND DANGEROUS.

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.