Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON AUS
Second aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Departure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was on a VFR flight and our route took us about 5 miles to the west of AUS. I was on flight following; so I was talking to ATC. I was sitting in the left seat; but there was a student pilot sitting in the right seat and he was flying the airplane. Austin Approach told us to maintain at or above 4;500 MSL. I clarified to make sure that he had said at or above or at or below. He confirmed at or above 4;500 MSL. He told an Air carrier flight to maintain 4;000. I saw the Air Carrier off my left side; approximately 3 miles away. He was in a right hand turn toward the north; while I was heading southerly. As I watched; he began a climbing left hand turn toward me. ATC had not told him to climb or turn. When I saw the Air Carrier begin the climbing left turn; I took the controls from the Student. As he came closer to me; still climbing; it was clear that if I did not take evasive action; we would collide. I began a rapid descent with a turn to the right to avoid him. Our traffic awareness system gave us an alert just as he was beginning his climb; but I had him in sight visually the entire time and maneuvered the airplane based on what I saw; not on the traffic awareness system. We missed each other; but not by much. Afterward; ATC queried the Air Carrier as to why they had began a climbing left hand turn. The pilot said and repeated several times it was due to a TCAS resolution advisory that apparently told them to make a climbing left hand turn. I firmly believe the TCAS system in their aircraft was wrong because it took them directly into us; not away from us as the resolution advisory is supposed to do. I don't believe the Air Carrier crew had our aircraft in sight; either; as why would they make that climbing left hand turn if they saw us? Austin Approach gave me a phone number to call them and I contacted them afterward and recounted what happened as I did above.


Second narrative: An MD80 on departure to maintain 040 initial heading 190 degrees; with an SR22 VFR 4 west of AUS; altitude restricted at or above 045. The MD80 was given heading 300 degrees (due to the route of flight; and to attempt the crossover underneath the SR22; so when clear to continue the climb) and issued traffic as the a/c rolled out '11-12 o'clock SR22 level VFR 045 SSW bound.' [The crew] read back 'roger.' I believe the next transmission was 'responding to a Resolution alert' with the MD80 Mode C indicating 041. Dumbfounded by this my response was 'Of course you are;' assuming the A/C was going to descend . The MD80 crew; for whatever reason the TCAS deemed necessary; continued climbing directly into the SR22. I asked the crew 'are you climbing?' I believe the response was 'we're responding to a RA.' The SR22 thankfully initiated a rapid descent to avoid the MD80. The SR22 was issued traffic prior as I recall and had the MD80 in sight thankfully which I believe saved a NMAC. After the MD80 was through with the RA the A/C turned to a SSW HDG (???) and went back down to 040. I did everything I could to avoid yelling at the MD80 pilot for the POOR COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN! I believe the SR22 is/has filed a NMAC and thanks to immediate descent avoided a catastrophic event. In my opinion the MD80 pilot was 'behind the aircraft' and seemed to be flying the A/C 'loose.'I have never seen anything such as this incident before in my 15 years at FAA; and 5 years USAF. The pilot relied on TCAS after slightly busting through the assigned altitude of 040 (i'm guessing here) which nearly created a NMAC. Thankfully the SR22 pilot actions saved all concerned; and this pilot should be commended for his actions! The MD80 pilot/TCAS created this mess.


Synopsis: An SR22 pilot and the Controller involved describe a NMAC caused by an MD80 crew responding to a TCAS RA. The MD80 exceeded their assigned altitude of 4;000 feet and the SR22 pilot had to dive out of 4;500 feet to avoid them.