Narrative:

This NASA form submitted for TCAS RA maneuver; deviation from ATC clearance; and possible loss of separation. Human factors and safety factors involved in this. We were on ZDC on J-174 under radar contact in accordance with flight plan. We reported zizzi intersection to company XA43Z FL340. Light turbulence started; and we requested FL360. ATC cleared us to FL360 at approximately XA45Z. We climbed in VNAV. Climbing through FL345 ATC told us to expedite climb to FL360 for traffic. We complied and started to expedite in the vertical speed mode. As I recall; this is the first time I saw on TCAS an aircraft +500 ft on the nose at approximately 10 miles. Seconds later; ATC gave us a hard left heading 150 degrees (about a 70 degree heading change) and expedite to FL360 for traffic. Simultaneously; with that radio call was a TCAS caution advising us 'traffic; traffic.' passing approximately FL347; we received a TCAS warning this time an RA advising 'descend; descend now.' we followed the RA contrary to ATC instructions. I advised ATC we were following our TCAS RA and would comply with ATC soon. At FL345 we received a 'clear of conflict' announcement and then resumed ATC instructions to expedite to FL360. We reported level at FL360. My best estimate is; the closest we got to the oncoming head-on traffic is 300 ft vertical while 3 NM horizontal; though the tapes might show us closer. I never visually saw the aircraft. My best judgement is ATC controller error and late ATC recognition that he should not have cleared us to FL360 to begin with. I would not have asked for a climb at all if the TCAS showed an aircraft at FL350. Company ATC desk confirms that ZDC is aware of a controller error and is looking into it. This situation could have been catastrophic had we followed ATC instructions instead of following the TCAS RA. ATC's turn to heading 150 degrees gave us some lateral separation quickly; but what if that radio call was even partially blocked? ATC's instruction to expedite the climb was questionable and perhaps exacerbated the situation. At best; I think we would have 'topped' the head-on traffic by 200 ft by following ATC's first instructions. In retrospect; we should not have been cleared out of FL340. One last aggravating factor is we were 5 or 6 minutes in trail of same company XXX (we were xxy). It is very possible that ATC heard 'company XXX' and cleared 'company xxy' but was looking at company XXX on his scope; who had already cleared the traffic at FL350.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier with ZDC climbing to FL360 experienced TCAS RA with opposite direction traffic; ATC issued expedited climb; TCAS commanded and crew initiated descent.

Narrative: This NASA form submitted for TCAS RA maneuver; deviation from ATC clearance; and possible loss of separation. Human factors and safety factors involved in this. We were on ZDC on J-174 under radar contact in accordance with flight plan. We reported ZIZZI Intersection to company XA43Z FL340. Light turbulence started; and we requested FL360. ATC cleared us to FL360 at approximately XA45Z. We climbed in VNAV. Climbing through FL345 ATC told us to expedite climb to FL360 for traffic. We complied and started to expedite in the Vertical Speed mode. As I recall; this is the first time I saw on TCAS an aircraft +500 FT on the nose at approximately 10 miles. Seconds later; ATC gave us a hard left heading 150 degrees (about a 70 degree heading change) and expedite to FL360 for traffic. Simultaneously; with that radio call was a TCAS caution advising us 'Traffic; Traffic.' Passing approximately FL347; we received a TCAS warning this time an RA advising 'Descend; Descend Now.' We followed the RA contrary to ATC instructions. I advised ATC we were following our TCAS RA and would comply with ATC soon. At FL345 we received a 'Clear of conflict' announcement and then resumed ATC instructions to expedite to FL360. We reported level at FL360. My best estimate is; the closest we got to the oncoming head-on traffic is 300 FT vertical while 3 NM horizontal; though the tapes might show us closer. I never visually saw the aircraft. My best judgement is ATC controller error and late ATC recognition that he should not have cleared us to FL360 to begin with. I would not have asked for a climb at all if the TCAS showed an aircraft at FL350. Company ATC desk confirms that ZDC is aware of a controller error and is looking into it. This situation could have been catastrophic had we followed ATC instructions instead of following the TCAS RA. ATC's turn to heading 150 degrees gave us some lateral separation quickly; but what if that radio call was even partially blocked? ATC's instruction to expedite the climb was questionable and perhaps exacerbated the situation. At best; I think we would have 'topped' the head-on traffic by 200 FT by following ATC's first instructions. In retrospect; we should not have been cleared out of FL340. One last aggravating factor is we were 5 or 6 minutes in trail of same Company XXX (we were XXY). It is very possible that ATC heard 'Company XXX' and cleared 'Company XXY' but was looking at Company XXX on his scope; who had already cleared the traffic at FL350.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.