Flight crew of an light transport had near midair collision with another aircraft during climb while...

Attributes
ACN	298762
Time
Date	199503
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : bpt
State Reference	TX
Altitude	msl bound lower : 7000 msl bound upper : 9000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	SF 340B
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute airway : zhu
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	ATR Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 20 flight time total : 7000 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	298762
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	conflict : nmac other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took evasive action
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 2500 vertical : 500
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

On mar/xx/95 departing bpt on climb out ATC asked if my aircraft had an ATR in sight during my climb. When confirmed visual, ATC authority/authorized a further climb maintaining visual separation from traffic. ATR aircraft called visual on us and was told to maintain visual separation. During my continued climb I determined clearance was becoming an issue and started leveling at 500 ft below the ATR. At that time the ATR made an evasive maneuver and asked ATC for our call sign and destination. There are several issues at hand in this scenario the first beginning with my aircraft. The ATR closed on my aircraft much faster than I anticipated. ATC, I felt, had an ability to look at angles and closures and allowed the climb which I assumed look ok to ATC and therefore did not anticipate the before mentioned closure rate. The ATR called visual and was gaining from my 4 O'clock position and I assumed would also aid in separation as directed 'maintain visual separation.' I also felt he was in a better position to maintain separation and would. Bad assumption on my part. In conclusion I feel everyone contributed in the following manner. The air was smooth and there was no real need for me to hurry my climb out. I should have stayed at 7000 ft until clear. ATC should have recognized poor angles and speeds (ie, closure rates) and not offered visual climb. ATR called visual contact and was told to maintain visual separation. If he had to make an evasive maneuver as suggested by him why did he allow himself to get into that position.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN LTT HAD NMAC WITH ANOTHER ACFT DURING CLB WHILE BOTH ACFT WERE INSIGHT AND POINTED OUT TO THE OTHER BY ATC.

Narrative: ON MAR/XX/95 DEPARTING BPT ON CLBOUT ATC ASKED IF MY ACFT HAD AN ATR IN SIGHT DURING MY CLB. WHEN CONFIRMED VISUAL, ATC AUTH A FURTHER CLB MAINTAINING VISUAL SEPARATION FROM TFC. ATR ACFT CALLED VISUAL ON US AND WAS TOLD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. DURING MY CONTINUED CLB I DETERMINED CLRNC WAS BECOMING AN ISSUE AND STARTED LEVELING AT 500 FT BELOW THE ATR. AT THAT TIME THE ATR MADE AN EVASIVE MANEUVER AND ASKED ATC FOR OUR CALL SIGN AND DEST. THERE ARE SEVERAL ISSUES AT HAND IN THIS SCENARIO THE FIRST BEGINNING WITH MY ACFT. THE ATR CLOSED ON MY ACFT MUCH FASTER THAN I ANTICIPATED. ATC, I FELT, HAD AN ABILITY TO LOOK AT ANGLES AND CLOSURES AND ALLOWED THE CLB WHICH I ASSUMED LOOK OK TO ATC AND THEREFORE DID NOT ANTICIPATE THE BEFORE MENTIONED CLOSURE RATE. THE ATR CALLED VISUAL AND WAS GAINING FROM MY 4 O'CLOCK POS AND I ASSUMED WOULD ALSO AID IN SEPARATION AS DIRECTED 'MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.' I ALSO FELT HE WAS IN A BETTER POS TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION AND WOULD. BAD ASSUMPTION ON MY PART. IN CONCLUSION I FEEL EVERYONE CONTRIBUTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. THE AIR WAS SMOOTH AND THERE WAS NO REAL NEED FOR ME TO HURRY MY CLBOUT. I SHOULD HAVE STAYED AT 7000 FT UNTIL CLR. ATC SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED POOR ANGLES AND SPDS (IE, CLOSURE RATES) AND NOT OFFERED VISUAL CLB. ATR CALLED VISUAL CONTACT AND WAS TOLD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. IF HE HAD TO MAKE AN EVASIVE MANEUVER AS SUGGESTED BY HIM WHY DID HE ALLOW HIMSELF TO GET INTO THAT POS.

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.

Flight crew of an light transport had near midair collision with another aircraft during climb while both aircraft were insight and pointed out to the other by ATC.