Narrative:

While approaching msp on 2/wed/88 at approximately XA20 local time, I was accused or causing a near collision by approach control. After being cleared for the bunkr 6 arrival, we were given a vector to intercept the 255 degree right of the msp VOR. Our next clearance was to depart the caase fix on a 120 degree heading and to descended and maintain 7000 from 11000'. Because the vector would not take us to caase, we radioed, 'mdt X understands direct caase then heading 130 degree,' (this heading was revised from 120 degrees). Approach concurred and we proceeded directly to caase via omega. At the fix we turned to 130 degree but were told to make an immediate turn to 180 degrees and climb to 9000' (from 8800'). Approach control claimed we had turned 5 mi prior to caase, despite our onboard indications. After being vectored to a visual to 29L the controller asked if we ever saw the medium large transport Y. I said, 'no' and was told, 'he got a good look at you.' on the ground we were advised to contact TRACON. I learned that if we had visual sep on each other IFR sep minimums would not have been violated. No traffic advisories were issued before or after our turn at caase. We also checked the coordinates of caase on the global and they agreed with those published. To the best of our knowledge we precisely executed the clearance issued by following our instrumentation. If there was a violation it was inadvertently unintentional and definitely not planned.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CPR-MDT TURNED EARLY AND INTO CONFLICT WITH ACR-MLG.

Narrative: WHILE APCHING MSP ON 2/WED/88 AT APPROX XA20 LCL TIME, I WAS ACCUSED OR CAUSING A NEAR COLLISION BY APCH CTL. AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE BUNKR 6 ARR, WE WERE GIVEN A VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE 255 DEG R OF THE MSP VOR. OUR NEXT CLRNC WAS TO DEPART THE CAASE FIX ON A 120 DEG HDG AND TO DESCENDED AND MAINTAIN 7000 FROM 11000'. BECAUSE THE VECTOR WOULD NOT TAKE US TO CAASE, WE RADIOED, 'MDT X UNDERSTANDS DIRECT CAASE THEN HDG 130 DEG,' (THIS HDG WAS REVISED FROM 120 DEGS). APCH CONCURRED AND WE PROCEEDED DIRECTLY TO CAASE VIA OMEGA. AT THE FIX WE TURNED TO 130 DEG BUT WERE TOLD TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE TURN TO 180 DEGS AND CLB TO 9000' (FROM 8800'). APCH CTL CLAIMED WE HAD TURNED 5 MI PRIOR TO CAASE, DESPITE OUR ONBOARD INDICATIONS. AFTER BEING VECTORED TO A VISUAL TO 29L THE CTLR ASKED IF WE EVER SAW THE MLG Y. I SAID, 'NO' AND WAS TOLD, 'HE GOT A GOOD LOOK AT YOU.' ON THE GND WE WERE ADVISED TO CONTACT TRACON. I LEARNED THAT IF WE HAD VISUAL SEP ON EACH OTHER IFR SEP MINIMUMS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. NO TFC ADVISORIES WERE ISSUED BEFORE OR AFTER OUR TURN AT CAASE. WE ALSO CHKED THE COORDINATES OF CAASE ON THE GLOBAL AND THEY AGREED WITH THOSE PUBLISHED. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE WE PRECISELY EXECUTED THE CLRNC ISSUED BY FOLLOWING OUR INSTRUMENTATION. IF THERE WAS A VIOLATION IT WAS INADVERTENTLY UNINTENTIONAL AND DEFINITELY NOT PLANNED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.