CJ3 ON VECTORS WITH N90 AT 3000 FT; EXPERIENCED CONFLICT WITH VFR TFC; REPORTER VOICED CONCERN WITH FAA INVESTIGATION AND CONCLUSIONS.

Narrative

WE WERE LEVEL AT 3000 FT ABOUT 15-20 MI WNW OF TEB ON VECTORS FOR A VOR RWY 24 APCH TO TEB (WE EVENTUALLY DID A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 24). ATC ISSUED TFC AT 11-12 O'CLOCK POS AT 2500 FT UNVERIFIED. WE WERE IN THE CLOUDS AT THE TIME AND ADVISED ATC. I THINK WE WERE ON ABOUT A 140 DEG HDG AND ATC ISSUED A L TURN TO 090 DEGS. WE ALSO GOT A TCAS ALERT; 'TFC; TFC' (WE HAVE TCASI SO I DIDN'T GET AN RA). ABOUT THE TIME WE GOT TO THE 090 DEG HDG; WE BROKE OUT OF THE CLOUDS AND SAW THE TFC. IT LOOKED TO BE LESS THAN 100 FT BELOW AND 500 FT IN FRONT OF US. I DISENGAGED THE AUTOPLT AND TURNED R TO MISS THE OTHER ACFT. THE OTHER ACFT (APPEARED TO BE A C172); LOOKED LIKE IT MAY HAVE TURNED ALSO. TCAS NOW SHOWED THE TFC TO BE 100 FT BELOW US. IF THE OTHER ACFT WAS MEETING THE CLOUD CLRNC REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS E AIRSPACE; IT WAS MARGINAL AT BEST. HE WAS DEFINITELY ABOVE THE BASES OF THE CLOUDS. I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE HOW FAR HE WAS LATERALLY FROM THE CLOUDS; BUT IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE 2000 FT TO ME. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS INCLUDE WX; ATC'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE VECTORS AWAY FROM KNOWN VFR TFC AND FAILURE TO ISSUE A 'TFC ALERT' (THEY MAY HAVE; BUT I DON'T RECALL HEARING IT; MORE ON THAT BELOW); LACK OF TCASII ON OUR ACFT; AND THE OTHER ACFT FLYING WITH EITHER MARGINAL OR ILLEGAL CLOUD CLRNC ESPECIALLY IN A CONGESTED AREA (UNDER THE 30 MI VEIL OF NYC CLASS B). IF MY CONCERN FOR THE NEAR MISS ISN'T ENOUGH; I'M ALSO BOTHERED BY A DISCUSSION I HAD WITH AN FAA INSPECTOR AT THE TEB FSDO 3 DAYS AFTER THE EVENT. HE SAID HE NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFO TO COMPLETE HIS RPT. SEVERAL THINGS HE SAID THAT WERE IN THE RPT FROM ATC (TRACON) SEEMED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT I REMEMBERED OR FACTS THAT I BELIEVE ARE NOT CORRECT. IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER: 1) HE SAID THE RPT SHOWED ATC ISSUED A TURN TO AVOID THE TFC. THE TURN TO 090 DEGS WAS FOR VECTORS TO THE APCH AS FAR AS I KNOW; AND IN FACT; IT TURNED US DIRECTLY TOWARD THE TFC. 2) HE SAID THE RPT SAID ATC ISSUED A 'TFC ALERT.' I HEARD A 'TA' FROM THEM BUT DON'T RECALL HEARING AN 'ALERT.' IF THEY ISSUED IT AS I WAS IN THE TURN TO AVOID THE TFC; I MAY HAVE MISSED IT; BUT I DON'T RECALL HEARING IT. 3) THE INSPECTOR SAID THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT TOLD HIM (AND HE SEEMED TO ACCEPT AS FACT) THAT THEY WERE 1200 FT ABOVE THE GND AND THUS IN CLASS G AIRSPACE AND ONLY REQUIRED 1 MI VISIBILITY AND CLR OF CLOUDS. THAT WOULD PUT THEM NO HIGHER THAN 2700 FT AND THUS 300 FT BELOW US. I DON'T THINK I AM THAT FAR OFF WITH MY ESTIMATE OF ALT. FURTHERMORE; I BELIEVE THE FLOOR OF CLASS E AIRSPACE AROUND THE SAX (SPARTA) VOR IS ACTUALLY 700 FT NOT 1200 FT. THAT WOULD PUT THE OTHER ACFT IN CLASS E AIRSPACE AND I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE; BUT IF THEY MET THE CLOUD CLRNC REQUIREMENT FOR THAT; IT WAS MARGINAL. 4) THE INSPECTOR SEEMED TO ACCEPT THE ENTIRE EVENT AS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAPPENS; AND THOUGHT THAT EVERYONE HAD DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT; OR AT LEAST WITHIN THE FAR'S. HE IMPLIED THAT HE WAS JUST FILLING IN DETAILS AND THAT HIS INVESTIGATION WOULD SAY THERE WERE NO PROBS OR ERRORS MADE. I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE WERE AT LEAST A COUPLE OF ERRORS; OR POSSIBLE SOME ISSUES OF LEGALITY THAT THE INSPECTOR ISN'T FOLLOWING UP ON. HE MAY BE; BUT WHAT THE TOLD ME WAS THAT HE HADN'T FOUND FAULT WITH ANYONE AT THIS POINT.