Narrative:

On may/fri/93, after landing, I was told by fll ground controller to telephone ZMA. After talking to a center supervisor, I found out that an small aircraft, which was flying nwbound at 6000 ft IFR under ZMA control, had reported a near miss situation with a light twin engine aircraft. ZMA controller had assumed that the twin engine aircraft was my aircraft because of similar flight path. I advised the supervisor that, at no time I recall a near miss situation and I never received any complaint of that nature from any one of any 5 passenger. Then I asked him how does the controller know that it was my aircraft involved in the alleged incident? He answered, when you contacted mia approach control, they followed your flight path! I then advised him that I did not contact mia approach at any time. My flight was initiated from sarasota, fl, at XX00 local with arsa departure. After leaving srq arsa, I was under FAA approved company flight following procedures and my next ATC communication was with fll tower at 15 mi west of fll international airport (at 1500 ft). In my opinion, what really caused this problem was the air traffic controller's lack of attention to his basic controller's/pilot duties about IFR separation, aim chapter 4 (air traffic control) second 4 paragraph #271(C) and safety alert, aim chapter 5 (air traffic procedures) paragraph #406 B(1) and (2) to his IFR traffic (small aircraft at 6000 ft flying nwbound into the sun!). Instead, the controller elects to point finger at my aircraft which happens to be in the approximately vicinity of alleged near miss area. Yes, let me assure you that almost always, every day at H plus 45 local eastern standard time, there will be a light twin engine aircraft in the vicinity of the alleged area because that is a daily scheduled flight.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 LIGHT ACFT HAD AN ALLEGED NMAC.

Narrative: ON MAY/FRI/93, AFTER LNDG, I WAS TOLD BY FLL GND CTLR TO TELEPHONE ZMA. AFTER TALKING TO A CTR SUPVR, I FOUND OUT THAT AN SMA, WHICH WAS FLYING NWBOUND AT 6000 FT IFR UNDER ZMA CTL, HAD RPTED A NEAR MISS SIT WITH A LIGHT TWIN ENG ACFT. ZMA CTLR HAD ASSUMED THAT THE TWIN ENG ACFT WAS MY ACFT BECAUSE OF SIMILAR FLT PATH. I ADVISED THE SUPVR THAT, AT NO TIME I RECALL A NEAR MISS SIT AND I NEVER RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINT OF THAT NATURE FROM ANY ONE OF ANY 5 PAX. THEN I ASKED HIM HOW DOES THE CTLR KNOW THAT IT WAS MY ACFT INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGED INCIDENT? HE ANSWERED, WHEN YOU CONTACTED MIA APCH CTL, THEY FOLLOWED YOUR FLT PATH! I THEN ADVISED HIM THAT I DID NOT CONTACT MIA APCH AT ANY TIME. MY FLT WAS INITIATED FROM SARASOTA, FL, AT XX00 LCL WITH ARSA DEP. AFTER LEAVING SRQ ARSA, I WAS UNDER FAA APPROVED COMPANY FLT FOLLOWING PROCS AND MY NEXT ATC COM WAS WITH FLL TWR AT 15 MI W OF FLL INTL ARPT (AT 1500 FT). IN MY OPINION, WHAT REALLY CAUSED THIS PROB WAS THE AIR TFC CTLR'S LACK OF ATTN TO HIS BASIC CTLR'S/PLT DUTIES ABOUT IFR SEPARATION, AIM CHAPTER 4 (AIR TFC CTL) SEC 4 PARAGRAPH #271(C) AND SAFETY ALERT, AIM CHAPTER 5 (AIR TFC PROCS) PARAGRAPH #406 B(1) AND (2) TO HIS IFR TFC (SMA AT 6000 FT FLYING NWBOUND INTO THE SUN!). INSTEAD, THE CTLR ELECTS TO POINT FINGER AT MY ACFT WHICH HAPPENS TO BE IN THE APPROX VICINITY OF ALLEGED NEAR MISS AREA. YES, LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT ALMOST ALWAYS, EVERY DAY AT H PLUS 45 LCL EASTERN STANDARD TIME, THERE WILL BE A LIGHT TWIN ENG ACFT IN THE VICINITY OF THE ALLEGED AREA BECAUSE THAT IS A DAILY SCHEDULED FLT.

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.