Mdt, IFR in VMC, has near midair collision with small aircraft.

Attributes
ACN	90527
Time
Date	198807
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : tvc airport : zmp
State Reference	MI
Altitude	msl bound lower : 6000 msl bound upper : 6500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zmp tower : ord
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Transport, High Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear
Flight Phase	cruise other
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 7500 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	90527
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Events
Anomaly	conflict : nmac
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : insufficient time
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 0 vertical : 350
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

On climb out from tvc we were on radar vectors for climb on an 180 degree heading and told to maintain 6000' (no reason was given). After being at 6000' for a minute or so, we were given VFR traffic at 10 O'clock. Less than 1 mi. Looking towards the rising sun we saw an small aircraft 300-400' above us, heading west. As the traffic moved off, msp center was telling the small aircraft that he (the small aircraft) had to listen up and respond to msp center, as apparently the center controller was having problems with the small aircraft. My comment is, why didn't the center controller advise us of the traffic earlier, especially since center had been having trouble with the small aircraft's communications? Some controllers take for granted that a nonencoding aircraft is always really at the altitude they reported, and bet sep on this premise. The truth is that many VFR altimeters may have seen many, many yrs west/O an altimeter calibration. Again, controllers need to warn us earlier. A warning of 'traffic, less than a mile' is really like no warning at all.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MDT, IFR IN VMC, HAS NMAC WITH SMA.

Narrative: ON CLBOUT FROM TVC WE WERE ON RADAR VECTORS FOR CLB ON AN 180 DEG HDG AND TOLD TO MAINTAIN 6000' (NO REASON WAS GIVEN). AFTER BEING AT 6000' FOR A MINUTE OR SO, WE WERE GIVEN VFR TFC AT 10 O'CLOCK. LESS THAN 1 MI. LOOKING TOWARDS THE RISING SUN WE SAW AN SMA 300-400' ABOVE US, HDG W. AS THE TFC MOVED OFF, MSP CENTER WAS TELLING THE SMA THAT HE (THE SMA) HAD TO LISTEN UP AND RESPOND TO MSP CENTER, AS APPARENTLY THE CENTER CTLR WAS HAVING PROBS WITH THE SMA. MY COMMENT IS, WHY DIDN'T THE CENTER CTLR ADVISE US OF THE TFC EARLIER, ESPECIALLY SINCE CENTER HAD BEEN HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE SMA'S COMS? SOME CTLRS TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT A NONENCODING ACFT IS ALWAYS REALLY AT THE ALT THEY RPTED, AND BET SEP ON THIS PREMISE. THE TRUTH IS THAT MANY VFR ALTIMETERS MAY HAVE SEEN MANY, MANY YRS W/O AN ALTIMETER CALIBRATION. AGAIN, CTLRS NEED TO WARN US EARLIER. A WARNING OF 'TFC, LESS THAN A MILE' IS REALLY LIKE NO WARNING AT ALL.

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.