Narrative:

Departed runway 32 at mqy approximately XP35 and cleared runway heading up to 2000 ft. Immediately after takeoff, our clearance was revised to a right turn to 070 degrees and maintain 3000 ft. After handoff to bna departure, we (aircraft X) were told to maintain 3000 ft (at the time we were climbing through approximately 2200 ft). About 1 min later, we were given a traffic alert for northbound traffic (aircraft Y) at 12 O'clock position, less than 1 mi, 3000 ft unverified, and given a heading of 030 degrees. This left turn would have caused our impending collision to occur a little farther to the north. With traffic at 12 O'clock crossing right to left, the controller should have given us a right turn or a change of altitude. I started the turn to 030 degrees before I had visual on the traffic. Once I spotted the traffic and saw we were rapidly closing with it, I broke right and climbed up to approximately 3300 ft. The controller, totally oblivious to his screw-up, told me to maintain 3000 ft. I returned to 3000 ft and the initially assigned heading of 070 degrees. About 30 seconds later, he asked for my heading and I responded '070 degrees.' he told me to fly a heading of 030 degrees as assigned. Since the conflicting traffic was 'unverified' at 3000 ft, I assumed he was not currently under bna's control and may have been a VFR aircraft at an incorrect altitude. While the other aircraft was certainly a contributing factor, I feel that ATC's late traffic call and poor choice for a conflict resolution nearly caused an near midair collision.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PART 135 OPERATOR CONCERNED WITH ATC INSTRUCTIONS THAT TURNED HIS ACFT INTO ANOTHER, UNCTLED ACFT.

Narrative: DEPARTED RWY 32 AT MQY APPROX XP35 AND CLRED RWY HDG UP TO 2000 FT. IMMEDIATELY AFTER TKOF, OUR CLRNC WAS REVISED TO A R TURN TO 070 DEGS AND MAINTAIN 3000 FT. AFTER HDOF TO BNA DEP, WE (ACFT X) WERE TOLD TO MAINTAIN 3000 FT (AT THE TIME WE WERE CLBING THROUGH APPROX 2200 FT). ABOUT 1 MIN LATER, WE WERE GIVEN A TFC ALERT FOR NBOUND TFC (ACFT Y) AT 12 O'CLOCK POS, LESS THAN 1 MI, 3000 FT UNVERIFIED, AND GIVEN A HDG OF 030 DEGS. THIS L TURN WOULD HAVE CAUSED OUR IMPENDING COLLISION TO OCCUR A LITTLE FARTHER TO THE N. WITH TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK XING R TO L, THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE GIVEN US A R TURN OR A CHANGE OF ALT. I STARTED THE TURN TO 030 DEGS BEFORE I HAD VISUAL ON THE TFC. ONCE I SPOTTED THE TFC AND SAW WE WERE RAPIDLY CLOSING WITH IT, I BROKE R AND CLBED UP TO APPROX 3300 FT. THE CTLR, TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS TO HIS SCREW-UP, TOLD ME TO MAINTAIN 3000 FT. I RETURNED TO 3000 FT AND THE INITIALLY ASSIGNED HDG OF 070 DEGS. ABOUT 30 SECONDS LATER, HE ASKED FOR MY HDG AND I RESPONDED '070 DEGS.' HE TOLD ME TO FLY A HDG OF 030 DEGS AS ASSIGNED. SINCE THE CONFLICTING TFC WAS 'UNVERIFIED' AT 3000 FT, I ASSUMED HE WAS NOT CURRENTLY UNDER BNA'S CTL AND MAY HAVE BEEN A VFR ACFT AT AN INCORRECT ALT. WHILE THE OTHER ACFT WAS CERTAINLY A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR, I FEEL THAT ATC'S LATE TFC CALL AND POOR CHOICE FOR A CONFLICT RESOLUTION NEARLY CAUSED AN NMAC.

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.