Narrative:

I departed tus on a VFR flight to conduct the afternoon traffic watch on dec/xx/97. While climbing I was advised of traffic, air carrier Y. Having the traffic in sight I advised ATC. I was given a heading of 300 degrees and continued my climb. As I was approaching my leveloff altitude of 6500 ft the traffic was given a heading towards the airport and I was given a heading of 330 degrees. I leveled off at 6500 ft and configured the aircraft for cruise flight. While I was performing these tasks I heard the traffic advise ATC their TCASII was 'whining at them' and that they showed traffic at their same altitude. With my new heading we were on converging flight paths, but separated by 500 ft. I turned back to my heading of 300 degrees, which kept me clearly out of the way of the traffic. At no time did I feel the situation was a danger. The controller was attentive to the situation. Although I had the traffic in sight and maintained VFR flight rules to see and avoid, a heading that would have taken me further from the arriving aircraft would have eliminated any confusion. Supplemental information from acn 387997: cessna (aircraft X) was on left downwind departure from tucson international from runway 11L for his traffic watch orbit climbing to 6500 ft. Air carrier Y (MD82) was on a vector to base for runway 11L descending to 7000 ft. Traffic was exchanged. Cessna had air carrier Y in sight and was just leveling at 6500 ft. The MD82 did not have cessna in sight. As the MD82 passed above cessna the air carrier pilot reported they were climbing in response to TCASII advisory. About 20 mins after landing the MD82 pilot called to report an near midair collision. The pilot bases the near midair report only upon information from the TCASII, no visual reference. Although from the radar data extraction there was a point when radar showed cessna at 6600 ft and also a point where MD82 was at 6900 ft. Vertical separation of 500 ft between IFR and VFR aircraft is standard operating practice along with an exchange of traffic in class C airspace, but apparently not when TCASII is involved. Supplemental information from acn 388244: I was the PF. We received a TA 10 NM north of tus at 7000 ft MSL, 180 KTS, while on vectors to runway 11L. 5 seconds later we got an RA to monitor vertical speed once, then a climb, climb warning, commanding a 1500 FPM climb. Responded immediately with a climb. Advised approach we were responding to an RA. Aircraft indicated 300 ft directly below us at the closest point. Then heard clear of conflict. We never saw the traffic. We then accepted a visual to runway 11L. Shortly thereafter, we informed tower we were too high to land. We were given vectors for another approach and landing runway 11L.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 RECEIVED A TCASII RA FROM A VFR TFC WATCH C172 WHILE ON VECTOR FOR A VISUAL APCH. ATC EXCHANGED TFC. GA PLT RPTED THE MD80 IN SIGHT. THE MD80 FLC DID NOT OBSERVE C172 AND UPON LNDG, FILED A NMAC RPT.

Narrative: I DEPARTED TUS ON A VFR FLT TO CONDUCT THE AFTERNOON TFC WATCH ON DEC/XX/97. WHILE CLBING I WAS ADVISED OF TFC, ACR Y. HAVING THE TFC IN SIGHT I ADVISED ATC. I WAS GIVEN A HDG OF 300 DEGS AND CONTINUED MY CLB. AS I WAS APCHING MY LEVELOFF ALT OF 6500 FT THE TFC WAS GIVEN A HEADING TOWARDS THE ARPT AND I WAS GIVEN A HDG OF 330 DEGS. I LEVELED OFF AT 6500 FT AND CONFIGURED THE ACFT FOR CRUISE FLT. WHILE I WAS PERFORMING THESE TASKS I HEARD THE TFC ADVISE ATC THEIR TCASII WAS 'WHINING AT THEM' AND THAT THEY SHOWED TFC AT THEIR SAME ALT. WITH MY NEW HEADING WE WERE ON CONVERGING FLT PATHS, BUT SEPARATED BY 500 FT. I TURNED BACK TO MY HDG OF 300 DEGS, WHICH KEPT ME CLEARLY OUT OF THE WAY OF THE TFC. AT NO TIME DID I FEEL THE SIT WAS A DANGER. THE CTLR WAS ATTENTIVE TO THE SIT. ALTHOUGH I HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT AND MAINTAINED VFR FLT RULES TO SEE AND AVOID, A HEADING THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN ME FURTHER FROM THE ARRIVING ACFT WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED ANY CONFUSION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 387997: CESSNA (ACFT X) WAS ON L DOWNWIND DEP FROM TUCSON INTL FROM RWY 11L FOR HIS TFC WATCH ORBIT CLBING TO 6500 FT. ACR Y (MD82) WAS ON A VECTOR TO BASE FOR RWY 11L DSNDING TO 7000 FT. TFC WAS EXCHANGED. CESSNA HAD ACR Y IN SIGHT AND WAS JUST LEVELING AT 6500 FT. THE MD82 DID NOT HAVE CESSNA IN SIGHT. AS THE MD82 PASSED ABOVE CESSNA THE ACR PLT RPTED THEY WERE CLBING IN RESPONSE TO TCASII ADVISORY. ABOUT 20 MINS AFTER LNDG THE MD82 PLT CALLED TO RPT AN NMAC. THE PLT BASES THE NEAR MIDAIR RPT ONLY UPON INFO FROM THE TCASII, NO VISUAL REF. ALTHOUGH FROM THE RADAR DATA EXTRACTION THERE WAS A POINT WHEN RADAR SHOWED CESSNA AT 6600 FT AND ALSO A POINT WHERE MD82 WAS AT 6900 FT. VERT SEPARATION OF 500 FT BTWN IFR AND VFR ACFT IS STANDARD OPERATING PRACTICE ALONG WITH AN EXCHANGE OF TFC IN CLASS C AIRSPACE, BUT APPARENTLY NOT WHEN TCASII IS INVOLVED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 388244: I WAS THE PF. WE RECEIVED A TA 10 NM N OF TUS AT 7000 FT MSL, 180 KTS, WHILE ON VECTORS TO RWY 11L. 5 SECONDS LATER WE GOT AN RA TO MONITOR VERT SPD ONCE, THEN A CLB, CLB WARNING, COMMANDING A 1500 FPM CLB. RESPONDED IMMEDIATELY WITH A CLB. ADVISED APCH WE WERE RESPONDING TO AN RA. ACFT INDICATED 300 FT DIRECTLY BELOW US AT THE CLOSEST POINT. THEN HEARD CLR OF CONFLICT. WE NEVER SAW THE TFC. WE THEN ACCEPTED A VISUAL TO RWY 11L. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE INFORMED TWR WE WERE TOO HIGH TO LAND. WE WERE GIVEN VECTORS FOR ANOTHER APCH AND LNDG RWY 11L.

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.