Narrative:

While on the yardley 2 arrival into ewr at 13000 ft, talking to bwi approach, we were given a 360 degree heading for WX which took us west of the 023 degree radial of pxt. Approximately 50 DME north (just southwest of the gatby intersection). We then picked up a target on TCASII at 10 O'clock, 1000 ft below. Traffic was not pointed out by ATC. We were then given a descent to 12000 ft, and before initiating the descent, received a TA from TCASII on the 10 O'clock traffic -- now within 10 mi, converging and climbing (less than 1000 ft). My first officer was the PF, and I advised him not to initiate the descent. We now were receiving an RA from TCASII to climb, with the traffic still at 10 O'clock, within 5 mi, and less than 500 ft vertically. I commanded the first officer to initiate a climbing right turn to get away from the converging 10 O'clock traffic. Shortly thereafter, I took control of the aircraft from my first officer, initiating a more aggressive climbing maneuver, as the TCASII now showed his target completely merged with our TCASII symbol with '0' ft vertical separation. No announcement was made from either of us to ATC about the maneuver until I leveled the aircraft off at approximately 14300 ft with a northeast heading (approximately 040 degrees). At the time I took over control of the airplane, I did hear our traffic tell ATC that they had traffic on TCASII that they were being cleared into, and visual contact was made, by myself, with a company MD80 in a left turn to evade us (and we were IMC at the time). Then, while at approximately 14000 ft we again received an RA to climb (which strengthened) with the traffic again within 5 mi and '0' ft vertically. I then banked left and initiated a climb with the traffic then clearing to the right (approximately 2-3 O'clock). After discussing the incident later on the phone with the controller's supervisor, I was told that the MD80 had been cleared to 14000 ft just prior to us being cleared to 12000 ft. The supervisor felt that TCASII was partly to blame because of our delay to descend to 12000 ft, and the MD80's delay to climb to 14000 ft as we saw each other on TCASII. I disagree. I'm not quite sure what caused the second close encounter (both TCASII may have announced RA's for both airplanes to climb at that point because we were both already climbing) but the first encounter could have simply been avoided by the controller not clearing a lower aircraft to climb, and a higher aircraft to descend through each other's altitudes on converging courses within 10 mi of one another. It is an extremely horrifying thing to look at a TCASII screen and see a target with '0' ft vertical separation directly on your aircraft symbol, and while flying IMC, look out the window and see an MD80. The controller's tapes indicate '0' ft vertical separation, .6 mi horizontal separation, but it looked closer than that. I do feel that the TCASII probably saved our lives. Supplemental information from acn 342855: I believe TCASII saved a lot of lives today, but I'm not too sure that the commands that each of the TCASII system on the 2 aircraft worked together as they should have. We had climbed above the other aircraft and the aircraft continued a climb to conflict with us again. I believe it was clearly an ATC error, but would like to have heard the MD80's TCASII instructions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF LTT STATES THAT A TCASII RA AND SUBSEQUENT ACTION PROBABLY SAVED THEIR LIVES DURING AN ARR VECTOR INTO EWR. WX AND DEPARTING TFC WERE FACTORS ALONG THE CONTESTED NE CORRIDOR DURING THIS INCIDENT. ATC ADVISED RPTR THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THE TCASII MAY HAVE BEEN A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR, ALONG WITH A SLOW CLB AND DELAYED DSCNT, TO THE OPERROR.

Narrative: WHILE ON THE YARDLEY 2 ARR INTO EWR AT 13000 FT, TALKING TO BWI APCH, WE WERE GIVEN A 360 DEG HDG FOR WX WHICH TOOK US W OF THE 023 DEG RADIAL OF PXT. APPROX 50 DME N (JUST SW OF THE GATBY INTXN). WE THEN PICKED UP A TARGET ON TCASII AT 10 O'CLOCK, 1000 FT BELOW. TFC WAS NOT POINTED OUT BY ATC. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A DSCNT TO 12000 FT, AND BEFORE INITIATING THE DSCNT, RECEIVED A TA FROM TCASII ON THE 10 O'CLOCK TFC -- NOW WITHIN 10 MI, CONVERGING AND CLBING (LESS THAN 1000 FT). MY FO WAS THE PF, AND I ADVISED HIM NOT TO INITIATE THE DSCNT. WE NOW WERE RECEIVING AN RA FROM TCASII TO CLB, WITH THE TFC STILL AT 10 O'CLOCK, WITHIN 5 MI, AND LESS THAN 500 FT VERTLY. I COMMANDED THE FO TO INITIATE A CLBING R TURN TO GET AWAY FROM THE CONVERGING 10 O'CLOCK TFC. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, I TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT FROM MY FO, INITIATING A MORE AGGRESSIVE CLBING MANEUVER, AS THE TCASII NOW SHOWED HIS TARGET COMPLETELY MERGED WITH OUR TCASII SYMBOL WITH '0' FT VERT SEPARATION. NO ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE FROM EITHER OF US TO ATC ABOUT THE MANEUVER UNTIL I LEVELED THE ACFT OFF AT APPROX 14300 FT WITH A NE HDG (APPROX 040 DEGS). AT THE TIME I TOOK OVER CTL OF THE AIRPLANE, I DID HEAR OUR TFC TELL ATC THAT THEY HAD TFC ON TCASII THAT THEY WERE BEING CLRED INTO, AND VISUAL CONTACT WAS MADE, BY MYSELF, WITH A COMPANY MD80 IN A L TURN TO EVADE US (AND WE WERE IMC AT THE TIME). THEN, WHILE AT APPROX 14000 FT WE AGAIN RECEIVED AN RA TO CLB (WHICH STRENGTHENED) WITH THE TFC AGAIN WITHIN 5 MI AND '0' FT VERTLY. I THEN BANKED L AND INITIATED A CLB WITH THE TFC THEN CLRING TO THE R (APPROX 2-3 O'CLOCK). AFTER DISCUSSING THE INCIDENT LATER ON THE PHONE WITH THE CTLR'S SUPVR, I WAS TOLD THAT THE MD80 HAD BEEN CLRED TO 14000 FT JUST PRIOR TO US BEING CLRED TO 12000 FT. THE SUPVR FELT THAT TCASII WAS PARTLY TO BLAME BECAUSE OF OUR DELAY TO DSND TO 12000 FT, AND THE MD80'S DELAY TO CLB TO 14000 FT AS WE SAW EACH OTHER ON TCASII. I DISAGREE. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT CAUSED THE SECOND CLOSE ENCOUNTER (BOTH TCASII MAY HAVE ANNOUNCED RA'S FOR BOTH AIRPLANES TO CLB AT THAT POINT BECAUSE WE WERE BOTH ALREADY CLBING) BUT THE FIRST ENCOUNTER COULD HAVE SIMPLY BEEN AVOIDED BY THE CTLR NOT CLRING A LOWER ACFT TO CLB, AND A HIGHER ACFT TO DSND THROUGH EACH OTHER'S ALTS ON CONVERGING COURSES WITHIN 10 MI OF ONE ANOTHER. IT IS AN EXTREMELY HORRIFYING THING TO LOOK AT A TCASII SCREEN AND SEE A TARGET WITH '0' FT VERT SEPARATION DIRECTLY ON YOUR ACFT SYMBOL, AND WHILE FLYING IMC, LOOK OUT THE WINDOW AND SEE AN MD80. THE CTLR'S TAPES INDICATE '0' FT VERT SEPARATION, .6 MI HORIZ SEPARATION, BUT IT LOOKED CLOSER THAN THAT. I DO FEEL THAT THE TCASII PROBABLY SAVED OUR LIVES. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 342855: I BELIEVE TCASII SAVED A LOT OF LIVES TODAY, BUT I'M NOT TOO SURE THAT THE COMMANDS THAT EACH OF THE TCASII SYS ON THE 2 ACFT WORKED TOGETHER AS THEY SHOULD HAVE. WE HAD CLBED ABOVE THE OTHER ACFT AND THE ACFT CONTINUED A CLB TO CONFLICT WITH US AGAIN. I BELIEVE IT WAS CLRLY AN ATC ERROR, BUT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HEARD THE MD80'S TCASII INSTRUCTIONS.

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.