Narrative:

Pilot was on a VFR flight plan from avalon, ca, to santa barbara. Pilot was taking advantage of flight following, talking to ZLA (and has extensive experience in/near the lax TCA and lax area. Incident was near but not in TCA). Controller called traffic at 10 O'clock, 10 mi, 10000'; a commuter light transport. Both airplanes responded neg contact. Controller issued 2ND advisory. I believe at 6 mi, 10 O'clock, 10000'. Light transport also responded negatively. Although I'm not certain I recall a response by the light transport, I am certain that there was no affirmative contact by the light transport. The direction given by the controller would have placed traffic roughly in the sunlight. Ocean glare in that same direction further reduced visibility. Controller handed off light transport, I believe to lax approach. I immediately became concerned that both aircraft, in close proximity, were not talking to different controllers. But, before I could contact center for further advisory, light transport appeared at 12 O'clock below me! Traffic bearing was wrong or had been changed by the controller who assigned control of the light transport. Light transport had descended through my altitude west/O mutual visibility contact and west/O any controller advisory to me. Neither pilot nor controllers are culpable in the 'legal' sense. Both pilots were using reasonable 'see and avoid' techniques (lights on, etc). Controller had no responsibility to provide my VFR flight with sep. May not have been a 'true' near miss. Light transport may have reported traffic in sight to 2ND controller and may have assumed responsibility for sep. This scenario is supported by my observation that the light transport never appeared to take evasive action either. The light transport never saw me or had me in sight and provided visibility (but close) sep. I would not have been party to this communications, or the light transport took evasive action only after it passed and I never saw their action (it happened very quickly). Although the controller was acting within his authority in making the light transport handoff, this was probably unadvisable. Because both aircraft were talking to different controllers, neither aircraft could be certain that the other aircraft had visibility contact. Even if the light transport had me in sight, this was still potentially very unsafe. Although the controller had no obligation to provide me with on going information regarding whether the light transport had me in sight, the absence of that information set me up for a big surprise. Had I been less skilled, I may have acted erratically when confronted with an aircraft that appeared suddenly at an unexpected altitude in close proximity (closing at more than 500 mph!).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DESPITE REPEATED TRAFFIC ADVISORIES, REPORTER FLYING AN SMT OVER CMA ARPT, AND AN LTT COMUTER COME VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER WHEN TRAVELING OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.

Narrative: PLT WAS ON A VFR FLT PLAN FROM AVALON, CA, TO SANTA BARBARA. PLT WAS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF FLT FOLLOWING, TALKING TO ZLA (AND HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN/NEAR THE LAX TCA AND LAX AREA. INCIDENT WAS NEAR BUT NOT IN TCA). CTLR CALLED TFC AT 10 O'CLOCK, 10 MI, 10000'; A COMMUTER LTT. BOTH AIRPLANES RESPONDED NEG CONTACT. CTLR ISSUED 2ND ADVISORY. I BELIEVE AT 6 MI, 10 O'CLOCK, 10000'. LTT ALSO RESPONDED NEGATIVELY. ALTHOUGH I'M NOT CERTAIN I RECALL A RESPONSE BY THE LTT, I AM CERTAIN THAT THERE WAS NO AFFIRMATIVE CONTACT BY THE LTT. THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE CTLR WOULD HAVE PLACED TFC ROUGHLY IN THE SUNLIGHT. OCEAN GLARE IN THAT SAME DIRECTION FURTHER REDUCED VISIBILITY. CTLR HANDED OFF LTT, I BELIEVE TO LAX APCH. I IMMEDIATELY BECAME CONCERNED THAT BOTH ACFT, IN CLOSE PROX, WERE NOT TALKING TO DIFFERENT CTLRS. BUT, BEFORE I COULD CONTACT CTR FOR FURTHER ADVISORY, LTT APPEARED AT 12 O'CLOCK BELOW ME! TFC BEARING WAS WRONG OR HAD BEEN CHANGED BY THE CTLR WHO ASSIGNED CTL OF THE LTT. LTT HAD DSNDED THROUGH MY ALT W/O MUTUAL VIS CONTACT AND W/O ANY CTLR ADVISORY TO ME. NEITHER PLT NOR CTLRS ARE CULPABLE IN THE 'LEGAL' SENSE. BOTH PLTS WERE USING REASONABLE 'SEE AND AVOID' TECHNIQUES (LIGHTS ON, ETC). CTLR HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE MY VFR FLT WITH SEP. MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A 'TRUE' NEAR MISS. LTT MAY HAVE RPTED TFC IN SIGHT TO 2ND CTLR AND MAY HAVE ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEP. THIS SCENARIO IS SUPPORTED BY MY OBSERVATION THAT THE LTT NEVER APPEARED TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION EITHER. THE LTT NEVER SAW ME OR HAD ME IN SIGHT AND PROVIDED VIS (BUT CLOSE) SEP. I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PARTY TO THIS COMS, OR THE LTT TOOK EVASIVE ACTION ONLY AFTER IT PASSED AND I NEVER SAW THEIR ACTION (IT HAPPENED VERY QUICKLY). ALTHOUGH THE CTLR WAS ACTING WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY IN MAKING THE LTT HDOF, THIS WAS PROBABLY UNADVISABLE. BECAUSE BOTH ACFT WERE TALKING TO DIFFERENT CTLRS, NEITHER ACFT COULD BE CERTAIN THAT THE OTHER ACFT HAD VIS CONTACT. EVEN IF THE LTT HAD ME IN SIGHT, THIS WAS STILL POTENTIALLY VERY UNSAFE. ALTHOUGH THE CTLR HAD NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ME WITH ON GOING INFO REGARDING WHETHER THE LTT HAD ME IN SIGHT, THE ABSENCE OF THAT INFO SET ME UP FOR A BIG SURPRISE. HAD I BEEN LESS SKILLED, I MAY HAVE ACTED ERRATICALLY WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ACFT THAT APPEARED SUDDENLY AT AN UNEXPECTED ALT IN CLOSE PROX (CLOSING AT MORE THAN 500 MPH!).

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.