Date: 201306
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A GLF5 was an IFR departure off of [a Class D airport] to [ZZZ VOR] at 4;000 FT. A DA40 was a VFR practice approach that was direct [ZZZ VOR] from the west at 3;500 FT. A C172 was an IFR en route aircraft that was direct [ZZZ VOR]; 2 miles behind the DA40. I turned the GLF4 before [ZZZ VOR] to a 270 heading to avoid flying directly over the DA40 and to pass the C172 so I could continue his climb. Then I descended the DA40 to 30 FT because I didn't want the GLF5 to get an RA climb. Then I went back to the GLF5 and called the VFR traffic. He responded to my traffic call that he was getting an RA climb. I told him not to do that; since I had the IFR traffic at 5;000 FT behind the VFR. He told me he must respond to the RA and I told him to descend immediately to 4;000 FT. (At this point the GLF5 was past the VFR; who at this point was already level at 30 FT.) I went back and called traffic to the C172; and they told me that they had the GLF5 insight. The closest proximity during the playback of the situation was 500 FT and 1.18 miles. I'm not sure I have a recommendation; it's just one of those things that occur from time to time. I had the situation under control; I was calling traffic and keeping minimum separation; but the aircraft had to override me and listen to his equipment instead; which put him in an unsafe situation. The original situation was not unsafe; although his TCAS perceived it was. I normally use 1;000 FT separation because of this; but there are times and sectors where that isn't possible. ZZZ1 Sector is approximately 10 miles by 12 miles in dimension and there are a lot of practice approaches that go on. Because of this; we use most of our available altitudes and don't always have the luxury of using 1;000 FT. In the GLF5's attempt to get 1;000 FT between him and the VFR; he went down to 500 FT separation with the IFR; placing that IFR in a risky situation for no reason. I'm upset and frustrated over the situation; but I'm not sure there is a solution.


Second narrative: On an IFR flight plan we departed the runway via the Departure Procedure heading 269 heading to 2;200 then climbing left turn direct [ZZZ VOR] with an initial assigned climb altitude of 4;000 FT MSL. RADAR contact was established with SoCal Departure upon passing 3;000 FT MSL. Two NM prior to reaching [ZZZ VOR] and now level at 4;000 FT MSL SoCal Departure vectors us a right turn 270 degrees maintain 4;000 FT MSL and upon roll out on 270; VFR traffic will be 1 o'clock at 3;500 FT MSL. Upon rolling level on 270 our TCAS advised us of a TA advisory. The aircraft was then seen on the PFD in yellow at our 1 o'clock position. This was immediately followed with an RA advisory instructing us to climb. I then advised SoCal that we were responding to an RA and are in a climb. The Controller advised us not to do that due to another traffic conflict with an IFR aircraft overhead at 5;000 FT MSL and instructed us to descend immediately and maintain 4;000 FT MSL. At that exact moment of the Controller's instructions we received another RA advisory to descend showing traffic in red over the top of us. In the descending action taken I witnessed the #1 VFR Cessna aircraft passing opposite direction at what appeared to be within 300 FT of us and confirmed by TCAS indicating '-03'. Soon after; we were advised that traffic was no longer a factor and were given a turn to the north followed by a frequency change. I then requested a landline number before changing frequency. Contributing factors were: Out of the two conflicting aircraft; one was VFR and the other IFR. The initial assigned altitude was 4;000 FT MSL followed by an assigned vector to turn 270 towards conflicting traffic. My question is if the Controller knew that both conflicting aircraft were in the area near our assigned altitude headed our direction. Why were we released for takeoff from [the airport]?  Why weren't we not assigned an expedited climb to a higher non-conflicting altitude such as 6;000 FT MSL considering the performance abilities of our aircraft? Why were we vectored 270 instead of maintaining our current heading? Why weren't assigned a turn south to keep us away from conflicting traffic? I believe it was the Controller's lack of planning and attention to detail that hindered her ability to avoid the rapid development of this traffic conflict resulting in the close proximity of three aircraft. I believe it was the Controller's failure to read the situation before it became an issue and her verbal instructions to deviate from our Resolution Advisory that ultimately jeopardized the safety of flight.


Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a TCAS RA involving a VFR and IFR aircraft; the RA actions resulting in an IFR to IFR separation issue.