Narrative:

My student and I were on a dual x-country flight from enw to rfd and return. Two separate VFR flight plans were filed and the student contacted approach near the visibility chkpoint at belvedere, il, and was first put off, then treated extremely brusquely and rudely, in spite of his identify as a student pilot in his call. On departure rfd, we obtained information 'victor' which gave E250 overcast 6H 82/65 0405 014 landing/departure 06-36, contact ground with initial heading. The student did so for departure northeast direct enw at 3500' and was given 'remain VFR at or below 2500'; departure 121.1; squawk 4275; depart runway 36 from the intersection...' we departed and tower turned us on course with no altitude change authority/authorized and told us to contact departure. The same person (I am positive) we got coming in told us 'stand by'. We climbed to 2500' on course and were approaching belvedere, the visibility chkpoint just northeast of the rfd TRSA when we were told 'radar service terminated, frequency change approved.' at no time were we given 'radar contact', in spite of acceptance of the 4275 IFR squawk and acceptance of the departure control handoff which, I believe, implies full participation. At the time we were 'turned loose', we suddenly observed a twin come out of the haze from our right and make a left turn for avoidance very close. At no time were we given any clue of traffic, and we just did not see them earlier. After some thought, I have come up with the following strategy: if this happens again, I or my students will wait approximately 1 min after the 'stand by.' we will then simultaneously squawk 1200 and advise tower that we are not participating in stage III radar due to non-acceptance of our handoff. I believe this to be safer, because we will then accept total responsibility for traffic avoidance instead of attempting to rely even partially on something that is not happening. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter states he has not done any follow up nor has the FAA. He is aware of see and avoid but it was extremely hazy and there was no way to see the twin until he did. Analyst counseled that non participation was not teaching student proper procedures. Better to follow up with facility supervisor.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT NOT GIVEN TRAFFIC ADVISORY. NMAC.

Narrative: MY STUDENT AND I WERE ON A DUAL X-COUNTRY FLT FROM ENW TO RFD AND RETURN. TWO SEPARATE VFR FLT PLANS WERE FILED AND THE STUDENT CONTACTED APCH NEAR THE VIS CHKPOINT AT BELVEDERE, IL, AND WAS FIRST PUT OFF, THEN TREATED EXTREMELY BRUSQUELY AND RUDELY, IN SPITE OF HIS IDENT AS A STUDENT PLT IN HIS CALL. ON DEP RFD, WE OBTAINED INFO 'VICTOR' WHICH GAVE E250 OVCST 6H 82/65 0405 014 LNDG/DEP 06-36, CONTACT GND WITH INITIAL HDG. THE STUDENT DID SO FOR DEP NE DIRECT ENW AT 3500' AND WAS GIVEN 'REMAIN VFR AT OR BELOW 2500'; DEP 121.1; SQUAWK 4275; DEPART RWY 36 FROM THE INTXN...' WE DEPARTED AND TWR TURNED US ON COURSE WITH NO ALT CHANGE AUTH AND TOLD US TO CONTACT DEP. THE SAME PERSON (I AM POSITIVE) WE GOT COMING IN TOLD US 'STAND BY'. WE CLBED TO 2500' ON COURSE AND WERE APCHING BELVEDERE, THE VIS CHKPOINT JUST NE OF THE RFD TRSA WHEN WE WERE TOLD 'RADAR SVC TERMINATED, FREQ CHANGE APPROVED.' AT NO TIME WERE WE GIVEN 'RADAR CONTACT', IN SPITE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE 4275 IFR SQUAWK AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEP CTL HDOF WHICH, I BELIEVE, IMPLIES FULL PARTICIPATION. AT THE TIME WE WERE 'TURNED LOOSE', WE SUDDENLY OBSERVED A TWIN COME OUT OF THE HAZE FROM OUR R AND MAKE A L TURN FOR AVOIDANCE VERY CLOSE. AT NO TIME WERE WE GIVEN ANY CLUE OF TFC, AND WE JUST DID NOT SEE THEM EARLIER. AFTER SOME THOUGHT, I HAVE COME UP WITH THE FOLLOWING STRATEGY: IF THIS HAPPENS AGAIN, I OR MY STUDENTS WILL WAIT APPROX 1 MIN AFTER THE 'STAND BY.' WE WILL THEN SIMULTANEOUSLY SQUAWK 1200 AND ADVISE TWR THAT WE ARE NOT PARTICIPATING IN STAGE III RADAR DUE TO NON-ACCEPTANCE OF OUR HDOF. I BELIEVE THIS TO BE SAFER, BECAUSE WE WILL THEN ACCEPT TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR TFC AVOIDANCE INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING TO RELY EVEN PARTIALLY ON SOMETHING THAT IS NOT HAPPENING. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR STATES HE HAS NOT DONE ANY FOLLOW UP NOR HAS THE FAA. HE IS AWARE OF SEE AND AVOID BUT IT WAS EXTREMELY HAZY AND THERE WAS NO WAY TO SEE THE TWIN UNTIL HE DID. ANALYST COUNSELED THAT NON PARTICIPATION WAS NOT TEACHING STUDENT PROPER PROCS. BETTER TO FOLLOW UP WITH FAC SUPVR.

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.