Narrative:

Arrived earlier at bdr airport, picked up passenger, taxied out for departure to boston. Very nice sunday, great WX, lots of small airplanes flying. Tower says to taxi into position and hold runway 24. We proceed to back-taxi, notice small aircraft on final, inform tower of this. Tower tells that aircraft to go around and make left traffic. Tower then clears us for takeoff. The small aircraft still has not turned left. Tower again tells that aircraft to make left traffic. He still does not and is drifting right. Tower then tells aircraft to turn right, but again aircraft does not. After takeoff we turn slightly left to avoid overtaking him. No conflict. We change frequency to departure. Now here is the 'interesting' part of the story. We climb to 2000 ft MSL as assigned, turn to assigned heading of 090 degrees (thereabouts). Then departure gives us a climb to 3000 ft MSL on a heading of 060 degrees. Established at 3000 ft and on the 060 degree heading, I see converging traffic at 1:30 - 2 O'clock position, cessna single engine 172, maybe 1/4 - 1/2 mi away at probably 2900-3000 ft MSL. He is converging. I announce traffic to PF, he sees traffic and initiates a climb. As I reach for the microphone to advise ATC of the traffic and our climb, other pilot says 'tell him we're climbing to a TCASII command.' I tell ATC 'XXX climbing for TCASII traffic.' this all happened almost simultaneously. ATC says 'I don't see any traffic out there' and 'you have saab traffic above you at 4000 ft.' we knew, and had seen, the saab. He was at 4000 ft, but also was behind us. ATC then asked saab, 'do you show TCASII traffic at 3000 ft?' saab said no. By now we have passed over traffic and started to descend. The highest we got was 3600 ft MSL briefly. As we descend through 3400 ft, ATC says he saw no traffic, that we had IFR traffic (the saab) at 4000 ft. That he would write up our altitude deviation, then says climb to 9000 ft. We proceeded uneventfully. Now that things had calmed down, we realized we did not get a TCASII command! ATC and the saab did not 'see' him because he did not use a transponder! We have had TCASII about 2 yrs. It is a great tool. Operating in the northeast, we get occasional RA's. We are accustomed to TCASII callouts. That is why I incorrectly used 'climbing for TCASII command.' the traffic was there, and I believe a midair collision may have occurred had we not taken evasive action. We did the right thing. We are alive. Our error, in the intensity of the event, was incorrect terminology of our actions, and the assumption that TCASII was 'calling.' TCASII is a great tool, but scanning will still save your life. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: this flight crew was flying a corporate citation III and their primary problem in this event is that they improperly used the terminology TCASII instead of avoiding traffic in sight. Since the controller did not see the intruder on his scope, he assumed that it was not there when the flight crew used the improper terminology. The flight crew recognizes their error, but at the same time they think that the controller was a bit too aggressive toward them. They have not heard from the FAA. The original aircraft that the flight crew saw was a cessna 172 (a very old model) with a single person on board. This aircraft never changed course or altitude and the rptrs do not think he saw any of the other traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT. FLC SEES AND AVOIDS OTHER TFC, BUT IN ERROR, USES THE TERM TCASII WHEN INFORMING THE CTLR. THE CTLR DOES NOT SEE THE OTHER TFC ON HIS RADAR AND OPENLY DOUBTS THEIR RPT.

Narrative: ARRIVED EARLIER AT BDR ARPT, PICKED UP PAX, TAXIED OUT FOR DEP TO BOSTON. VERY NICE SUNDAY, GREAT WX, LOTS OF SMALL AIRPLANES FLYING. TWR SAYS TO TAXI INTO POS AND HOLD RWY 24. WE PROCEED TO BACK-TAXI, NOTICE SMALL ACFT ON FINAL, INFORM TWR OF THIS. TWR TELLS THAT ACFT TO GO AROUND AND MAKE L TFC. TWR THEN CLRS US FOR TKOF. THE SMALL ACFT STILL HAS NOT TURNED L. TWR AGAIN TELLS THAT ACFT TO MAKE L TFC. HE STILL DOES NOT AND IS DRIFTING R. TWR THEN TELLS ACFT TO TURN R, BUT AGAIN ACFT DOES NOT. AFTER TKOF WE TURN SLIGHTLY L TO AVOID OVERTAKING HIM. NO CONFLICT. WE CHANGE FREQ TO DEP. NOW HERE IS THE 'INTERESTING' PART OF THE STORY. WE CLB TO 2000 FT MSL AS ASSIGNED, TURN TO ASSIGNED HDG OF 090 DEGS (THEREABOUTS). THEN DEP GIVES US A CLB TO 3000 FT MSL ON A HDG OF 060 DEGS. ESTABLISHED AT 3000 FT AND ON THE 060 DEG HDG, I SEE CONVERGING TFC AT 1:30 - 2 O'CLOCK POS, CESSNA SINGLE ENG 172, MAYBE 1/4 - 1/2 MI AWAY AT PROBABLY 2900-3000 FT MSL. HE IS CONVERGING. I ANNOUNCE TFC TO PF, HE SEES TFC AND INITIATES A CLB. AS I REACH FOR THE MIKE TO ADVISE ATC OF THE TFC AND OUR CLB, OTHER PLT SAYS 'TELL HIM WE'RE CLBING TO A TCASII COMMAND.' I TELL ATC 'XXX CLBING FOR TCASII TFC.' THIS ALL HAPPENED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY. ATC SAYS 'I DON'T SEE ANY TFC OUT THERE' AND 'YOU HAVE SAAB TFC ABOVE YOU AT 4000 FT.' WE KNEW, AND HAD SEEN, THE SAAB. HE WAS AT 4000 FT, BUT ALSO WAS BEHIND US. ATC THEN ASKED SAAB, 'DO YOU SHOW TCASII TFC AT 3000 FT?' SAAB SAID NO. BY NOW WE HAVE PASSED OVER TFC AND STARTED TO DSND. THE HIGHEST WE GOT WAS 3600 FT MSL BRIEFLY. AS WE DSND THROUGH 3400 FT, ATC SAYS HE SAW NO TFC, THAT WE HAD IFR TFC (THE SAAB) AT 4000 FT. THAT HE WOULD WRITE UP OUR ALTDEV, THEN SAYS CLB TO 9000 FT. WE PROCEEDED UNEVENTFULLY. NOW THAT THINGS HAD CALMED DOWN, WE REALIZED WE DID NOT GET A TCASII COMMAND! ATC AND THE SAAB DID NOT 'SEE' HIM BECAUSE HE DID NOT USE A XPONDER! WE HAVE HAD TCASII ABOUT 2 YRS. IT IS A GREAT TOOL. OPERATING IN THE NE, WE GET OCCASIONAL RA'S. WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO TCASII CALLOUTS. THAT IS WHY I INCORRECTLY USED 'CLBING FOR TCASII COMMAND.' THE TFC WAS THERE, AND I BELIEVE A MIDAIR COLLISION MAY HAVE OCCURRED HAD WE NOT TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION. WE DID THE RIGHT THING. WE ARE ALIVE. OUR ERROR, IN THE INTENSITY OF THE EVENT, WAS INCORRECT TERMINOLOGY OF OUR ACTIONS, AND THE ASSUMPTION THAT TCASII WAS 'CALLING.' TCASII IS A GREAT TOOL, BUT SCANNING WILL STILL SAVE YOUR LIFE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS FLC WAS FLYING A CORPORATE CITATION III AND THEIR PRIMARY PROB IN THIS EVENT IS THAT THEY IMPROPERLY USED THE TERMINOLOGY TCASII INSTEAD OF AVOIDING TFC IN SIGHT. SINCE THE CTLR DID NOT SEE THE INTRUDER ON HIS SCOPE, HE ASSUMED THAT IT WAS NOT THERE WHEN THE FLC USED THE IMPROPER TERMINOLOGY. THE FLC RECOGNIZES THEIR ERROR, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY THINK THAT THE CTLR WAS A BIT TOO AGGRESSIVE TOWARD THEM. THEY HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE FAA. THE ORIGINAL ACFT THAT THE FLC SAW WAS A CESSNA 172 (A VERY OLD MODEL) WITH A SINGLE PERSON ON BOARD. THIS ACFT NEVER CHANGED COURSE OR ALT AND THE RPTRS DO NOT THINK HE SAW ANY OF THE OTHER TFC.

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.