Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Distraction; Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Airspace Structure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
While climbing out passing 14;000 ft. we received a CPDLC message. As soon as we went heads down to read it; Center informed us of VFR traffic to our 1-2 o'clock; climbing through 14;200 ft. and they stated that we would probably out-climb them. We visually acquired them at around 14;500 ft. and confirmed we were climbing faster. Just after that radio call we got a TCAS TA for that traffic. After passing them and being clear of the conflict we turn our attention back to the CPDLC message. It was instructing us to turn right direct to a fix. From our course to this fix; this would have put us in direct conflict with the VFR traffic had we complied immediately. In fact; on this sequence; we noticed for the first time ATC using CPDLC to give altitude and course changes. Additionally; we received a CPDLC message immediately after landing; just stating that CPDLC is no longer in use. Since this is the same chime used when the flight attendants call; the first thought was that something was going on in the cabin. In both of these cases the high low chime and message on the FMS only served as distractions as there were bigger threats outside of the aircraft that required our attention. This doesn't instill confidence that ATC is properly using CPDLC or that it is having unintended negative consequences. Task saturation on both ATC and pilots having to monitor CPDLC messages while simultaneously talk on the radio and monitor radar or PFD screens. Distractions that cause both pilots to go heads down lowers the overall situational awareness of the crew. CPDLC messages; particularly ones involving altitude or course changes; should be restricted to Class A airspace where VFR traffic is no longer a factor and flight separation is more controlled and predictable. Additionally; nuisance CPDLC messages; such as those stating that CPDLC is no longer in use; should be suppressed below 10;000 ft.
While climbing at approximately 14;000 ft we were alerted to proximity traffic at our 1-2 o'clock moving northeast. We were then immediately handed off to Washington Center. We checked in and then received a CPDLC instructing us to turn right; coincidentally the location of the traffic. All this happened in about 10-15 seconds. We spotted the traffic with the assistance of TCAS and at no point did the event present a threat. While CPDLC is a remarkable tool to assist pilots and controllers as well as limit transmission interference; in our specific situation it was a potential threat to these same benefits. We are busiest during initial climb. We're scanning for traffic; making radio calls and piloting the aircraft at relatively high speeds and low altitudes. Center took the hand off verbally but then immediately issued a CPDLC instruction which was highly distracting since the instruction had us turn in the direction of the previous issued traffic advisory that we had yet to see visually. The CPDLC alert stunned us both to look down at the FMS and inherently diverted our attention momentarily away from the primary duty of searching for traffic and flying the aircraft. Our expectation bias was not at all expecting a CPDLC at this altitude; airspace and phase of flight. In this case the outcome was non-eventful. I don't know enough about the program to intelligently make an informed suggestion. I'm simply relating an event that had the potential of negatively impacting safety to an unspecified degree.
Air carrier flight crew reported conflicting radio and CPDLC messages from ATC that could have resulted in a traffic conflict.