Narrative:

After departing aries intersection, we were given an initial heading of 200 degrees and a descent to 6000 ft. We were then given another heading of 180 degrees. Passing through 6500 ft, we noticed conflicting traffic at 6000 ft on the TCASII. The traffic was converging at us slightly to the left. We stopped the descent at 6200 ft and copied a clearance to turn 360 degrees. We then received a TCASII resolution to stop descent. At that time nrt approach gave us a heading 160 degrees (back into the traffic). We continued right and climbed to 7000 ft to avoid the conflict. Nrt approach agreed with our climb to 7000 ft. We cleared the conflicting traffic and resumed our approach with radar vectors to intercept the ILS approach. (I believe nrt approach was slow to recognize the conflict and could have been much more alert.) supplemental information from acn 391715: we responded to the TA and climbed to 7000 ft. ATC seemed confused as to our actions. Too close, bad communication. Supplemental information from acn 391806: ATC then gave our conflicting traffic a turn to the north. I think the controller meant 160 degrees instead of 360 degrees (this may be a language problem). ATC didn't mention the traffic conflict until just before the RA. Without our TCASII indications we very possibly would have collided.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTED LOSS OF SEPARATION BTWN AN UNKNOWN CLBING ACFT AND AN ACR WDB DSNDING TO 6000 FT.

Narrative: AFTER DEPARTING ARIES INTXN, WE WERE GIVEN AN INITIAL HDG OF 200 DEGS AND A DSCNT TO 6000 FT. WE WERE THEN GIVEN ANOTHER HDG OF 180 DEGS. PASSING THROUGH 6500 FT, WE NOTICED CONFLICTING TFC AT 6000 FT ON THE TCASII. THE TFC WAS CONVERGING AT US SLIGHTLY TO THE L. WE STOPPED THE DSCNT AT 6200 FT AND COPIED A CLRNC TO TURN 360 DEGS. WE THEN RECEIVED A TCASII RESOLUTION TO STOP DSCNT. AT THAT TIME NRT APCH GAVE US A HDG 160 DEGS (BACK INTO THE TFC). WE CONTINUED R AND CLBED TO 7000 FT TO AVOID THE CONFLICT. NRT APCH AGREED WITH OUR CLB TO 7000 FT. WE CLRED THE CONFLICTING TFC AND RESUMED OUR APCH WITH RADAR VECTORS TO INTERCEPT THE ILS APCH. (I BELIEVE NRT APCH WAS SLOW TO RECOGNIZE THE CONFLICT AND COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE ALERT.) SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 391715: WE RESPONDED TO THE TA AND CLBED TO 7000 FT. ATC SEEMED CONFUSED AS TO OUR ACTIONS. TOO CLOSE, BAD COM. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 391806: ATC THEN GAVE OUR CONFLICTING TFC A TURN TO THE N. I THINK THE CTLR MEANT 160 DEGS INSTEAD OF 360 DEGS (THIS MAY BE A LANGUAGE PROB). ATC DIDN'T MENTION THE TFC CONFLICT UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE RA. WITHOUT OUR TCASII INDICATIONS WE VERY POSSIBLY WOULD HAVE COLLIDED.

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.