ACR X TCASII RA FROM VFR SMA Y IN TCA. TCASII DISRUPTIVE TO ATC SYS.

Narrative

ACR X DEPARTED SEBOUND ASSIGNED 3000 FT. SMA Y WAS HOLDING SE OF THE ARPT AT 3500 FT. SEPARATION WAS 500 FT WHICH IS LEGAL IFR/VFR SEPARATION. TFC WAS ISSUED TO ACR X. AS ACR X WAS ACKNOWLEDGING; TCASII WAS HEARD IN BACKGND 'TFC; TFC.' AFTER ACFT DIVERGED; A CLB WAS ISSUED TO ACR X. ACR X REPLIED WITH 'THAT TFC WAS TOO CLOSE.' I AGAIN TOLD ACR X THAT 500 FT VFR/IFR SEPARATION WAS USED AND OFFERED A PHONE NUMBER FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED. AGAIN; I ASKED ACR X IF HE WANTED THE PHONE NUMBER. ACR X REPLIED THAT 'HE DIDN'T HAVE A PROB WITH THE 500 FT SEPARATION; IT'S JUST THAT THE 'MACHINE' WAS GOING CRAZY!' TCASII WILL ALWAYS ISSUE AN RA WHEN USING 500 FT VFR/IFR VERT SEPARATION; AND DIVERGING HDG/DELETE VERT SEPARATION RULES. THESE ARE ACCEPTED SEPARATION STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR YRS. TCASII WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INVISIBLE TO ATC. I DISAGREE. WHEN A CTLR CAN'T USE ACCEPTED SEPARATION STANDARDS WITHOUT A PLT GETTING AN RA; THE EQUIP IS NOT INVISIBLE. TCASII SHOULD NOT BE IN SVC. IT'S DISRUPTIVE AND DANGEROUS.