Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CMA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NDT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NTD
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After misleading instructions by Point Mugu Approach telling us [CMA] was landing 08 instead of our requested RNAV GPS Y 26 approach we had to reprogram for Runway 8; then were transferred to Approach who told us CMA was landing 26. We asked for vectors to program again the box to RNAV Y 26. ATC vectored us to join RNAV Y 26 approach and we had an RA. We were ready because we had them on TCAS. Captain who was flying followed the RA instruction and we came within 200 ft. of traffic. We asked for vectors to re-intercept the course for the approach and proceeded to land safely.ATC (Point Mugu) were under the false impression that CMA was landing 08 when the actually were landing 26; this created unnecessary stress and reprogramming of FMS and way more complicated vectoring than necessary. Then second approach ATC vectors us too close to traffic they did not speak to; that too was unnecessary and unsafe.ATC Approach personnel should better communicate between locations and double check their facts and serve pilot and passengers instead of shooing them along without understanding the time it takes to reprogram and brief last minute changes.


Second narrative: On the descent very close to CMA as we were talking to approach frequency setting up for the approach when we got an RA to climb. We were being vectored around at 4000 ft. when the RA occurred. It instructed to me to climb so I climbed to 4;600 ft. to clear the conflict. We reported the RA to approach. We then set up for the RNAV Runway 26; shot the approach and landed. ATC was the cause! We got the ATIS for CMA and they were landing Runway 26. We set up for Runway 26. Then we got handed over to Point Mugu Approach who emphatically told us that CMA was landing Runway 8. We asked him if we could land 26. He recommended that we set up for Runway 8. So we did. Then he handed us over to either Socal or the Tower (I can't remember). They put us on a heading and then said we were cleared for the RNAV Runway 26. We told them that we were set up for Runway 8 because of what the last Controller had told us. The new Controller asked us what we wanted to do. He asked if we wanted vectors to get reset up for the RNAV Runway 26 and we agreed. So while he was vectoring us we got the RA. Had the Controller at Pt Mugu not given us erroneous information; I don't believe this would have happened.


Synopsis: Corporate jet flight crew reported an NMAC on arrival into CMA after considerable confusion regarding the runway in use.