B737-700
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 174
Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
I was the pilot flying an ILS approach into BUR. We were cleared the ILS Runway 08 at 3;000 FT; configured flaps 5; and about to intercept the glideslope. I requested gear down at the same time ATC called traffic; canceled our approach clearance; and directed us to turn left heading 290. Due to the radio congestion; the pilot not flying did not hear my gear call. Immediately after the turn request from ATC; we received a TCAS Traffic Alert. As I was disconnecting the autopilot to comply with the turn; we received a 'descend; descend' RA. I immediately began the descent to comply. ATC then directed us to 'climb; climb' several times. I told the pilot not flying to tell him we were descending in response to the RA. Shortly thereafter; we received the clear of conflict notification from TCAS and ATC began vectors for set up for another approach. ATC apologized a couple of times and explained that GA traffic off Van Nuys had executed an incorrect missed approach. The next approach and subsequent landing were accomplished uneventfully. The traffic was never seen due to being in IMC; only the red square was visible on the map display.Due to the RA; we did not comply with the climb command from ATC. This event highlighted the importance of following the RA. The traffic at our 12 o'clock was also climbing and; had we followed the ATC climb in conflict with the RA; we would have been in a more hazardous clearance situation.I do not have a suggestion to prevent this from happening. Since the other aircraft was accomplishing the incorrect procedure; neither ATC nor we could have foreseen this conflict. The importance of following the RA was key to this event and the pilot not flying and I talked about it extensively upon landing. This event also highlighted the need to be ready for anything especially in a high workload phase of flight.
A C210 was on an IFR approach to VNY's 16R and went missed approach at 4;200. A B737 was landing straight in Runway 8 at BUR descending out of 4;000 FT to cross VNY at 3;000 FT. The aircraft were AT LEAST 6 miles apart at the time VNY called and advised of the missed approach. I displayed my 737 on their scope and advised them I would expedite them to 3;000 to fix the confliction. Somehow the C210 was allowed to descend to 3;000 FT (1;200 FT after coordination!) which put him in direct conflict with the 737. I canceled the 737's approach clearance and issued an expeditious climb; turn and traffic alert but it was too late; they responded to a TCAS RA. Not only was the C210 allowed to continue his descent the Tower also turned him directly west into the arriving B737! I am in awe of what just happened. The 737 crew did; however; thank me for my good service when I sent them on their way. VNY Tower needs to review this situation and learn from it. I am not one for calling anyone out or throwing anyone under the bus but that was absolutely terrible work from the Tower.
A B737-700 inbound to BUR suffered a close encounter with a C210 conducting an MAP from VNY.  The C210 had failed to follow the published MAP. Avoidance directives from ATC were in conflict with those from TCAS.