Narrative:

Our altitude was 7000 ft, phx departure vectored us to pass over a piper at 6500 ft and under an A320 at 8000 ft. We received an RA to climb. We did not climb. Had we done so we would have had a midair with the A320. Departure frequency was 124.1. Fortunately, it was cavok. Had we been in the clouds or not seen the piper we would have had to obey the command and risked a midair. Phx departure put us in an unsafe bind and I consider this an operational error. Departure vectored us to join the tfd 340 degree radial inbound. They could have cleared us direct to tfd and none of this would have happened. They are constantly clearing us to join this radial at a 90 degree, or so, intercept heading causing an overshoot or an F16 type of uncomfortable turn. This needs to be changed. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter had asked departure controller for a 'direct pxr' and was refused. No reason was given to reporter. Reporter felt that the traffic conflict was an anomaly unassociated with the intercept philosophy used. The conflict was, however, created by the technique used by the departure controller, that of placing them inbtwn 2 aircraft with no recourse on the use of a climb away from the traffic instigating the TCASII RA and refusing the direct clearance. Had the direct to pxr been granted the conflict would not have ensued with the track altered. It appeared to the reporter that the controller had a choice and chose the wrong solution. Reporter further stated that the union safety, ATC coordinator person had not contacted TRACON regarding the intercept angle or near midair collision situation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 FLT CREW IS PLACED IN A POTENTIAL CONFLICT 22 MI SE OF PXR VORTAC BY THE P50 CTLR WHEN ASSIGNED TO MAINTAIN 7000 FT, BTWN A VFR PIPER AT 6500 FT MSL AND AN A320 AT 8000 FT MSL.

Narrative: OUR ALT WAS 7000 FT, PHX DEP VECTORED US TO PASS OVER A PIPER AT 6500 FT AND UNDER AN A320 AT 8000 FT. WE RECEIVED AN RA TO CLB. WE DID NOT CLB. HAD WE DONE SO WE WOULD HAVE HAD A MIDAIR WITH THE A320. DEP FREQ WAS 124.1. FORTUNATELY, IT WAS CAVOK. HAD WE BEEN IN THE CLOUDS OR NOT SEEN THE PIPER WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO OBEY THE COMMAND AND RISKED A MIDAIR. PHX DEP PUT US IN AN UNSAFE BIND AND I CONSIDER THIS AN OPERROR. DEP VECTORED US TO JOIN THE TFD 340 DEG RADIAL INBOUND. THEY COULD HAVE CLRED US DIRECT TO TFD AND NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. THEY ARE CONSTANTLY CLRING US TO JOIN THIS RADIAL AT A 90 DEG, OR SO, INTERCEPT HDG CAUSING AN OVERSHOOT OR AN F16 TYPE OF UNCOMFORTABLE TURN. THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR HAD ASKED DEP CTLR FOR A 'DIRECT PXR' AND WAS REFUSED. NO REASON WAS GIVEN TO RPTR. RPTR FELT THAT THE TFC CONFLICT WAS AN ANOMALY UNASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERCEPT PHILOSOPHY USED. THE CONFLICT WAS, HOWEVER, CREATED BY THE TECHNIQUE USED BY THE DEP CTLR, THAT OF PLACING THEM INBTWN 2 ACFT WITH NO RECOURSE ON THE USE OF A CLB AWAY FROM THE TFC INSTIGATING THE TCASII RA AND REFUSING THE DIRECT CLRNC. HAD THE DIRECT TO PXR BEEN GRANTED THE CONFLICT WOULD NOT HAVE ENSUED WITH THE TRACK ALTERED. IT APPEARED TO THE RPTR THAT THE CTLR HAD A CHOICE AND CHOSE THE WRONG SOLUTION. RPTR FURTHER STATED THAT THE UNION SAFETY, ATC COORDINATOR PERSON HAD NOT CONTACTED TRACON REGARDING THE INTERCEPT ANGLE OR NMAC SIT.

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.