Narrative:

Flight was on a vector heading after departure from cos. Approximately 30 DME east of the field, we were cleared to climb to 16000 ft. Leaving 8200 ft MSL, the ATC controller instructed us to level off at 9000 ft and issued traffic information at 1 O'clock position heading south. The altitude callout from the controller was non- intelligible. The captain, the so and myself proceeded to look for the traffic. A target began to appear and then disappear on the TCASII display (almost as if the target's transponder was being turned on and off). The arrow aircraft proceeded to call us in sight. We did not have the arrow in view so we called for an updated position. The controller kept stating the arrow had us in sight. We stated we did not have the arrow in sight. At this point the target reappeared on our TCASII display with a tag showing him at our altitude. The controller queried the arrow as to his position and altitude. Re-verified the arrow's pilot had us in sight. (The controller had originally called out our traffic at 1 O'clock position when in fact the aircraft was at our 10-11 O'clock position.) at this point we were issued a TA followed by an RA followed by an urgent RA which we complied with. From our point, when we established contact with the arrow, it appeared as though the arrow was diving toward our aircraft. (We were to the right of the arrow during this sequence of events.) not one of us can, with complete accuracy, state the number of feet the arrow came to our aircraft. It is suffice to say it was way too close for comfort. After the RA was completed, we queried the controller and his response was the arrow had us in sight. If this is true, why did the pilot not alter course and instead maneuver dangerously close to our aircraft. I personally do not think he realized the danger he put our 146 passenger and 7 crew in. We did not have the arrow in visual contact until the RA's were issued. We never called the arrow in sight and we were operating on an IFR flight plan, the arrow was VFR. No aircraft has the right to operate close to a civilian airliner. It may be time to place greater restrs on private aircraft operating in the controled airspace of this country and to strengthen the initial and the recurrent training requirements for private pilots.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CLBING B727 WAS STOPPED IN ITS CLB OUT OF COS AND LEVELED AT THE SAME ALT AS A XING VFR PA28. TCASII SOLVED THE PROB OF THE TFC CONFLICT WHEN THE CTLR COULDN'T. POSSIBLE NMAC.

Narrative: FLT WAS ON A VECTOR HEADING AFTER DEP FROM COS. APPROX 30 DME E OF THE FIELD, WE WERE CLRED TO CLB TO 16000 FT. LEAVING 8200 FT MSL, THE ATC CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO LEVEL OFF AT 9000 FT AND ISSUED TFC INFO AT 1 O'CLOCK POS HEADING S. THE ALT CALLOUT FROM THE CTLR WAS NON- INTELLIGIBLE. THE CAPT, THE SO AND MYSELF PROCEEDED TO LOOK FOR THE TFC. A TARGET BEGAN TO APPEAR AND THEN DISAPPEAR ON THE TCASII DISPLAY (ALMOST AS IF THE TARGET'S XPONDER WAS BEING TURNED ON AND OFF). THE ARROW ACFT PROCEEDED TO CALL US IN SIGHT. WE DID NOT HAVE THE ARROW IN VIEW SO WE CALLED FOR AN UPDATED POS. THE CTLR KEPT STATING THE ARROW HAD US IN SIGHT. WE STATED WE DID NOT HAVE THE ARROW IN SIGHT. AT THIS POINT THE TARGET REAPPEARED ON OUR TCASII DISPLAY WITH A TAG SHOWING HIM AT OUR ALT. THE CTLR QUERIED THE ARROW AS TO HIS POS AND ALT. RE-VERIFIED THE ARROW'S PLT HAD US IN SIGHT. (THE CTLR HAD ORIGINALLY CALLED OUT OUR TFC AT 1 O'CLOCK POS WHEN IN FACT THE ACFT WAS AT OUR 10-11 O'CLOCK POS.) AT THIS POINT WE WERE ISSUED A TA FOLLOWED BY AN RA FOLLOWED BY AN URGENT RA WHICH WE COMPLIED WITH. FROM OUR POINT, WHEN WE ESTABLISHED CONTACT WITH THE ARROW, IT APPEARED AS THOUGH THE ARROW WAS DIVING TOWARD OUR ACFT. (WE WERE TO THE R OF THE ARROW DURING THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.) NOT ONE OF US CAN, WITH COMPLETE ACCURACY, STATE THE NUMBER OF FEET THE ARROW CAME TO OUR ACFT. IT IS SUFFICE TO SAY IT WAS WAY TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT. AFTER THE RA WAS COMPLETED, WE QUERIED THE CTLR AND HIS RESPONSE WAS THE ARROW HAD US IN SIGHT. IF THIS IS TRUE, WHY DID THE PLT NOT ALTER COURSE AND INSTEAD MANEUVER DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO OUR ACFT. I PERSONALLY DO NOT THINK HE REALIZED THE DANGER HE PUT OUR 146 PAX AND 7 CREW IN. WE DID NOT HAVE THE ARROW IN VISUAL CONTACT UNTIL THE RA'S WERE ISSUED. WE NEVER CALLED THE ARROW IN SIGHT AND WE WERE OPERATING ON AN IFR FLT PLAN, THE ARROW WAS VFR. NO ACFT HAS THE RIGHT TO OPERATE CLOSE TO A CIVILIAN AIRLINER. IT MAY BE TIME TO PLACE GREATER RESTRS ON PVT ACFT OPERATING IN THE CTLED AIRSPACE OF THIS COUNTRY AND TO STRENGTHEN THE INITIAL AND THE RECURRENT TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR PVT PLTS.

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.