Narrative:

Air carrier X descending on the vikes 1 arrival at reno out of approximately 13000 ft for 11000 ft, our cleared altitude. We were descending outbound on the llc VOR, R207 at approximately 55 DME when I depicted an aircraft on TCASII converging with our course and altitude. I alerted my crew to search the airspace in front of us, and during our scan we encountered a TA immediately followed by an RA to 'increase descent,' which moments later changed to 'climb.' we climbed to 15400 ft and observed a light twin taking evasive action about 1/2 mi to our right. Next, we informed rno approach control of our RA, actions, and sightings. His response was to issue a TA long after the fact with no explanation nor apparent concern for the situation. My concerns center around 4 thoughts: 1) why was the twin departing and climbing on the wagge 1 departure (llc VOR R207 inbound), and simultaneously we were outbound on the same radial (llc VOR R207) executing the vikes 1 arrival, converging, with no altitude separation. 2) was approach control aware of the conflict? 3) granted, approach control was busy during this time frame, but was he too busy and was there no approach radar conflict alarm working at the time? 4) the approach controller's response to our RA and verbal inquiry was very unreassuring and aloof.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X TCASII RA WITH VFR TWIN ENG ACFT. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT. EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN.

Narrative: ACR X DSNDING ON THE VIKES 1 ARR AT RENO OUT OF APPROX 13000 FT FOR 11000 FT, OUR CLRED ALT. WE WERE DSNDING OUTBOUND ON THE LLC VOR, R207 AT APPROX 55 DME WHEN I DEPICTED AN ACFT ON TCASII CONVERGING WITH OUR COURSE AND ALT. I ALERTED MY CREW TO SEARCH THE AIRSPACE IN FRONT OF US, AND DURING OUR SCAN WE ENCOUNTERED A TA IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY AN RA TO 'INCREASE DSCNT,' WHICH MOMENTS LATER CHANGED TO 'CLB.' WE CLBED TO 15400 FT AND OBSERVED A LIGHT TWIN TAKING EVASIVE ACTION ABOUT 1/2 MI TO OUR R. NEXT, WE INFORMED RNO APCH CTL OF OUR RA, ACTIONS, AND SIGHTINGS. HIS RESPONSE WAS TO ISSUE A TA LONG AFTER THE FACT WITH NO EXPLANATION NOR APPARENT CONCERN FOR THE SIT. MY CONCERNS CENTER AROUND 4 THOUGHTS: 1) WHY WAS THE TWIN DEPARTING AND CLBING ON THE WAGGE 1 DEP (LLC VOR R207 INBOUND), AND SIMULTANEOUSLY WE WERE OUTBOUND ON THE SAME RADIAL (LLC VOR R207) EXECUTING THE VIKES 1 ARR, CONVERGING, WITH NO ALT SEPARATION. 2) WAS APCH CTL AWARE OF THE CONFLICT? 3) GRANTED, APCH CTL WAS BUSY DURING THIS TIME FRAME, BUT WAS HE TOO BUSY AND WAS THERE NO APCH RADAR CONFLICT ALARM WORKING AT THE TIME? 4) THE APCH CTLR'S RESPONSE TO OUR RA AND VERBAL INQUIRY WAS VERY UNREASSURING AND ALOOF.

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.