Narrative:

Commuter X was on visual approach to runway 19 at alb asked if I had traffic for him. (At the time I was conducting a position relief briefing and working 6 or 7 aircraft). I scanned the area around aircraft X and advised him negative traffic at which time the sweep picked up a primary target in his 6 O'clock and I advised him such, since the target strength was very weak and in the vicinity of 5b7 (one of our satellite airports). I advised him possibly low in 5b7 pattern. He replied negative, that traffic was at 6000' and we had a near midair collision with him. I replied that previous to your query, I had not painted any traffic for him. Pilot reported near midair collision to alb FSDO. Subsequent review of data base revealed one hit on the primary target approximately 3 min prior to the incident and one or two hits after. Signal strength on data sheet indicated strength 2. Radar coverage at alb is terrible and is well documented. I believe the situation occurred as a result of the following: non participating aircraft flying west/O transponder. Non participating aircraft flying west/O mode C. Poor radar coverage. Cockpit vigilance to see and be seen. I do not feel that controller workload played a part even though a position briefing was taking place. I might also add that data indicated the non participating aircraft got within 10 NM of the airport and violated far, with respect to arsa requirements. Evasive action I believe was taken. Lso the heading of the non participating aircraft may have caused a tangential situation with respect to radar coverage.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BETWEEN COMMUTER AND SMA ACFT.

Narrative: COMMUTER X WAS ON VISUAL APCH TO RWY 19 AT ALB ASKED IF I HAD TFC FOR HIM. (AT THE TIME I WAS CONDUCTING A POS RELIEF BRIEFING AND WORKING 6 OR 7 ACFT). I SCANNED THE AREA AROUND ACFT X AND ADVISED HIM NEGATIVE TFC AT WHICH TIME THE SWEEP PICKED UP A PRIMARY TARGET IN HIS 6 O'CLOCK AND I ADVISED HIM SUCH, SINCE THE TARGET STRENGTH WAS VERY WEAK AND IN THE VICINITY OF 5B7 (ONE OF OUR SATELLITE ARPTS). I ADVISED HIM POSSIBLY LOW IN 5B7 PATTERN. HE REPLIED NEGATIVE, THAT TFC WAS AT 6000' AND WE HAD A NMAC WITH HIM. I REPLIED THAT PREVIOUS TO YOUR QUERY, I HAD NOT PAINTED ANY TFC FOR HIM. PLT RPTED NMAC TO ALB FSDO. SUBSEQUENT REVIEW OF DATA BASE REVEALED ONE HIT ON THE PRIMARY TARGET APPROX 3 MIN PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT AND ONE OR TWO HITS AFTER. SIGNAL STRENGTH ON DATA SHEET INDICATED STRENGTH 2. RADAR COVERAGE AT ALB IS TERRIBLE AND IS WELL DOCUMENTED. I BELIEVE THE SITUATION OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE FOLLOWING: NON PARTICIPATING ACFT FLYING W/O XPONDER. NON PARTICIPATING ACFT FLYING W/O MODE C. POOR RADAR COVERAGE. COCKPIT VIGILANCE TO SEE AND BE SEEN. I DO NOT FEEL THAT CTLR WORKLOAD PLAYED A PART EVEN THOUGH A POS BRIEFING WAS TAKING PLACE. I MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT DATA INDICATED THE NON PARTICIPATING ACFT GOT WITHIN 10 NM OF THE ARPT AND VIOLATED FAR, WITH RESPECT TO ARSA REQUIREMENTS. EVASIVE ACTION I BELIEVE WAS TAKEN. LSO THE HDG OF THE NON PARTICIPATING ACFT MAY HAVE CAUSED A TANGENTIAL SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO RADAR COVERAGE.

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.