Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAN.TRACON, MI
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E LAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON LAN
Second aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was Pilot Flying and we were level at 7;000 ft outbound from JXN to HAVEN on V353 with Lansing Approach.LAN APCH issued a turn 20 degrees to the left of course for traffic which we complied with. Rolling wings level we noticed a target on our TCAS +02 and 25 NM (approximate distance of 25 NM in line with us; at 200 ft above our altitude of 7;000 ft MSL).The Pilot Monitoring (PM) and myself as the Pilot Flying (PF) began discussing the vector 20 degrees to the left because it appeared that the target on our TCAS may become a conflict. The PM attempted to query the Controller two separate times about the altitude and position of the target we were seeing on our TCAS [which] was still level 200 ft above our altitude. We prepared for the conflict with a contingency plan of descending and turning should it become necessary but to follow the Traffic Alert and subsequent Resolution Advisory should we receive one.The LAN APCH Controller then asked a Cherokee (which was the target 200 ft above us at a head-on closure course) if he could climb. He asked again if he could climb to maintain 8;000 ft and I believe the Cherokee stated he would climb after the second clearance. The LAN APCH Controller never responded to our traffic query either time. We attempted to query a third time when we received a TRAFFIC ALERT then that was immediately followed by a RESOLUTION ADVISORY to descend. With our TCAS range as low as it would go to 2.5NM scale I estimated that the Cherokee passed directly over top of us with less than 1.0NM of lateral deviation and our descent commanded us to lose almost 1;500 ft. We estimate vertical distance at the bottom of the RESOLUTION ADVISORY gave us just over 1;500 ft of vertical separation as a result.The LAN APCH Controller became defensive when the PM asked 'Why did you turn us into that traffic?' Apparently there was another aircraft to our right that was not present on our TCAS display.I feel that our proactivity in spotting the traffic on our TCAS helped prepare us for the maneuver. We never visually acquired the Cherokee.Moving forward; I believe that when an aircraft interrogates a radar sector about an impending traffic alert that we should be promptly answered with accurate information and a position report in relation to our aircraft position. The Controller stated that Cherokee was 500 ft above us but our instruments indicated that it was only 200 ft above us at the time of the TA and RA.The Controller also should have given us (the high performance aircraft) a DESCENT and/or HEADING VECTOR to turn away from the target rather than climb a SINGLE-ENGINE PISTON aircraft who did not acknowledge the first order to climb (that I heard).




Synopsis: CL30 Captain reported an NMAC with a light aircraft in the vicinity of HAVEN intersection at 7000 ft.