Narrative:

Our aircraft was level at 14000 ft for approximately 10 mins. TCASII issued TA for traffic descending and coming directly towards us. ZNY then advised us of VFR BE02 descending out of 14500 ft through our altitude and the BE02 had us in sight. We did not have the BE02 in sight so we responded to the climb RA when BE02 was approximately 3 mi from us. At that time BE02 stopped its descent, our TCASII then reversed its command to a 'descend, descend now' RA which we followed. We passed under the BE02 by approximately 100 ft of separation. In the process we subjected our passenger to a very abrupt maneuver which was totally avoidable. The airliner that was flying VFR has a tendency to fly a majority of their flts under VFR rules. I have had several other close (500-1000 ft separation) encounters with airplanes from this same company. My opinion of flying VFR in and around the new york metropolitan area is 'it is just not safe to try and rely on visual separation to operate high speed aircraft.' I know these pilots are pressed to be early by their company. However, there is no excuse for jeopardizing the safety to their passenger, and the safety of the people at my airline, who use the IFR system no matter how many delays and shortcomings it may have.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BTWN S340 AND BE1900. RPTR ACFT WAS ON IFR FLT PLAN AND INTRUDER BE02 WAS VFR. CTR CTLR HAD ALERTED RPTR FLC TO TFC, BUT THEY WERE UNABLE TO SEE IT. TCASII RA PROVIDED GUIDANCE FOR EVADING, BUT JUST AS RPTR ACFT WAS CLBING, THE OTHER ACFT STOPPED ITS DSCNT, SO THE TCASII GAVE OPPOSITE RA INSTRUCTIONS. RPTR FAULTS OTHER ACR FOR FLYING IN A HIGH DENSITY TFC AREA VFR.

Narrative: OUR ACFT WAS LEVEL AT 14000 FT FOR APPROX 10 MINS. TCASII ISSUED TA FOR TFC DSNDING AND COMING DIRECTLY TOWARDS US. ZNY THEN ADVISED US OF VFR BE02 DSNDING OUT OF 14500 FT THROUGH OUR ALT AND THE BE02 HAD US IN SIGHT. WE DID NOT HAVE THE BE02 IN SIGHT SO WE RESPONDED TO THE CLB RA WHEN BE02 WAS APPROX 3 MI FROM US. AT THAT TIME BE02 STOPPED ITS DSCNT, OUR TCASII THEN REVERSED ITS COMMAND TO A 'DSND, DSND NOW' RA WHICH WE FOLLOWED. WE PASSED UNDER THE BE02 BY APPROX 100 FT OF SEPARATION. IN THE PROCESS WE SUBJECTED OUR PAX TO A VERY ABRUPT MANEUVER WHICH WAS TOTALLY AVOIDABLE. THE AIRLINER THAT WAS FLYING VFR HAS A TENDENCY TO FLY A MAJORITY OF THEIR FLTS UNDER VFR RULES. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL OTHER CLOSE (500-1000 FT SEPARATION) ENCOUNTERS WITH AIRPLANES FROM THIS SAME COMPANY. MY OPINION OF FLYING VFR IN AND AROUND THE NEW YORK METRO AREA IS 'IT IS JUST NOT SAFE TO TRY AND RELY ON VISUAL SEPARATION TO OPERATE HIGH SPD ACFT.' I KNOW THESE PLTS ARE PRESSED TO BE EARLY BY THEIR COMPANY. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR JEOPARDIZING THE SAFETY TO THEIR PAX, AND THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE AT MY AIRLINE, WHO USE THE IFR SYS NO MATTER HOW MANY DELAYS AND SHORTCOMINGS IT MAY HAVE.

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.