Narrative:

ATC advised air carrier X of an aircraft Y at our 10-11 O'clock position, at an altitude of 12000 ft in a north direction. We were traveling in a southwest direction at 13000 ft. ATC also wanted us to report that traffic was in sight. We advised ATC that we were looking for the traffic and that we had negative contact. At this time, ATC advised Y at 12000 ft of our position and altitude and direction of flight. ATC also wanted Y to 'report the falcon in sight.' within a few seconds, he did. At that moment, ATC issued clearance to maintain visual separation with the falcon and climb to an altitude that I did not hear clearly. All I knew was that this other aircraft was climbing through our altitude. When the climbing aircraft was 5 mi away, our TCASII issued a traffic alert. The TCASII display indicated that the climbing aircraft was at our 10-11 O'clock and 500 ft below us in a climb. My first officer spotted the climbing aircraft a few moments later and advised his exact position for me. I made visual contact, and realized that the other aircraft appeared not to be moving in my windshield, indicating it was near or at my present altitude and on a collision course. Since the opposing aircraft had it's rate of climb established, I believe a climb by our aircraft would have resulted in a collision when the 2 flight paths merged. Therefore, a dive to the right was initiated. While taking evasive action, ATC issued a TA and cleared us to descend to 10000 ft. We never heard, or clearly heard, the ATC advisory nor the clearance to descend. I leveled at 11000 ft turned back to our on course heading and asked the first officer what altitude we were suppose to be at. He called ATC to verify the altitude. I called indianapolis ARTCC when I landed. The first question I asked was what type of aircraft was that at 12000 ft. ATC replied that it was a BE200 (kingair). I was told he was IFR. Next, I asked if he was clear to climb through 13000 ft with us in sight visually. The controller said yes, the BE200 had said that he had us in sight and clearance to 'maintain visual separation with the falcon was issued.' another question I asked was, at what altitude did the 2 aircraft merge on your radar scope? That reply was somewhat surprising. ATC said the nearest antenna sweep they had on us was one that put the DA900 at 13000 ft, 1.3 mi horizontally, on a converging course with the BE200. The BE200 was at 12800 ft still climbing. With hindsight being 20/20, I believe several factors to be contributing factors to this incident. First, I believe clearing an aircraft to climb while in VMC conditions above 10000 ft where speeds are not restr to 250 KIAS, does not make a great deal of sense and is an accident waiting for a place to happen. Why not allow visual separation to be maintained in the flight levels above FL180? Secondly, did the BE200 pilot actually see the falcon at all? From our vantage point, it did not appear to us that the BE200 pilot saw us, or maybe he lost us in the climb. Whatever the reason, the BE200 pilot did not change course or attitude to avoid us. Lastly, TCASII could have been smarter. It could have issued a resolution alert much earlier based on the speeds to the 2 converging aircraft. I had actually received visual contact with the opposing aircraft within 2 mi horizontally prior to TCASII issuing an RA climb command. At this time I had no idea what type of aircraft we were dealing with. Seeing the opposing aircraft at or about our altitude, already established at an unknown rate of climb, I didn't believe we would out climb it. Consequently, a dive was initiated. In my mind, this action prevented the mid-air collision.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE20 VISUAL SEPARATION IN USE CLB THROUGH OCCUPIED ALT HAD NMAC WITH CPR X. EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT.

Narrative: ATC ADVISED ACR X OF AN ACFT Y AT OUR 10-11 O'CLOCK POS, AT AN ALT OF 12000 FT IN A N DIRECTION. WE WERE TRAVELING IN A SW DIRECTION AT 13000 FT. ATC ALSO WANTED US TO RPT THAT TFC WAS IN SIGHT. WE ADVISED ATC THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE TFC AND THAT WE HAD NEGATIVE CONTACT. AT THIS TIME, ATC ADVISED Y AT 12000 FT OF OUR POS AND ALT AND DIRECTION OF FLT. ATC ALSO WANTED Y TO 'RPT THE FALCON IN SIGHT.' WITHIN A FEW SECONDS, HE DID. AT THAT MOMENT, ATC ISSUED CLRNC TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH THE FALCON AND CLB TO AN ALT THAT I DID NOT HEAR CLRLY. ALL I KNEW WAS THAT THIS OTHER ACFT WAS CLBING THROUGH OUR ALT. WHEN THE CLBING ACFT WAS 5 MI AWAY, OUR TCASII ISSUED A TFC ALERT. THE TCASII DISPLAY INDICATED THAT THE CLBING ACFT WAS AT OUR 10-11 O'CLOCK AND 500 FT BELOW US IN A CLB. MY FO SPOTTED THE CLBING ACFT A FEW MOMENTS LATER AND ADVISED HIS EXACT POS FOR ME. I MADE VISUAL CONTACT, AND REALIZED THAT THE OTHER ACFT APPEARED NOT TO BE MOVING IN MY WINDSHIELD, INDICATING IT WAS NEAR OR AT MY PRESENT ALT AND ON A COLLISION COURSE. SINCE THE OPPOSING ACFT HAD IT'S RATE OF CLB ESTABLISHED, I BELIEVE A CLB BY OUR ACFT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A COLLISION WHEN THE 2 FLT PATHS MERGED. THEREFORE, A DIVE TO THE R WAS INITIATED. WHILE TAKING EVASIVE ACTION, ATC ISSUED A TA AND CLRED US TO DSND TO 10000 FT. WE NEVER HEARD, OR CLRLY HEARD, THE ATC ADVISORY NOR THE CLRNC TO DSND. I LEVELED AT 11000 FT TURNED BACK TO OUR ON COURSE HDG AND ASKED THE FO WHAT ALT WE WERE SUPPOSE TO BE AT. HE CALLED ATC TO VERIFY THE ALT. I CALLED INDIANAPOLIS ARTCC WHEN I LANDED. THE FIRST QUESTION I ASKED WAS WHAT TYPE OF ACFT WAS THAT AT 12000 FT. ATC REPLIED THAT IT WAS A BE200 (KINGAIR). I WAS TOLD HE WAS IFR. NEXT, I ASKED IF HE WAS CLR TO CLB THROUGH 13000 FT WITH US IN SIGHT VISUALLY. THE CTLR SAID YES, THE BE200 HAD SAID THAT HE HAD US IN SIGHT AND CLRNC TO 'MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH THE FALCON WAS ISSUED.' ANOTHER QUESTION I ASKED WAS, AT WHAT ALT DID THE 2 ACFT MERGE ON YOUR RADAR SCOPE? THAT REPLY WAS SOMEWHAT SURPRISING. ATC SAID THE NEAREST ANTENNA SWEEP THEY HAD ON US WAS ONE THAT PUT THE DA900 AT 13000 FT, 1.3 MI HORIZLY, ON A CONVERGING COURSE WITH THE BE200. THE BE200 WAS AT 12800 FT STILL CLBING. WITH HINDSIGHT BEING 20/20, I BELIEVE SEVERAL FACTORS TO BE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS INCIDENT. FIRST, I BELIEVE CLRING AN ACFT TO CLB WHILE IN VMC CONDITIONS ABOVE 10000 FT WHERE SPDS ARE NOT RESTR TO 250 KIAS, DOES NOT MAKE A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE AND IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING FOR A PLACE TO HAPPEN. WHY NOT ALLOW VISUAL SEPARATION TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE FLT LEVELS ABOVE FL180? SECONDLY, DID THE BE200 PLT ACTUALLY SEE THE FALCON AT ALL? FROM OUR VANTAGE POINT, IT DID NOT APPEAR TO US THAT THE BE200 PLT SAW US, OR MAYBE HE LOST US IN THE CLB. WHATEVER THE REASON, THE BE200 PLT DID NOT CHANGE COURSE OR ATTITUDE TO AVOID US. LASTLY, TCASII COULD HAVE BEEN SMARTER. IT COULD HAVE ISSUED A RESOLUTION ALERT MUCH EARLIER BASED ON THE SPDS TO THE 2 CONVERGING ACFT. I HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE OPPOSING ACFT WITHIN 2 MI HORIZLY PRIOR TO TCASII ISSUING AN RA CLB COMMAND. AT THIS TIME I HAD NO IDEA WHAT TYPE OF ACFT WE WERE DEALING WITH. SEEING THE OPPOSING ACFT AT OR ABOUT OUR ALT, ALREADY ESTABLISHED AT AN UNKNOWN RATE OF CLB, I DIDN'T BELIEVE WE WOULD OUT CLB IT. CONSEQUENTLY, A DIVE WAS INITIATED. IN MY MIND, THIS ACTION PREVENTED THE MID-AIR COLLISION.

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.