Narrative:

IFR flight plan between opf and tmb (18 NM apart, both fields were IFR) on radar vectors (210 degrees). I looked ahead and saw aircraft in distance at same altitude, opp direction, heading toward me, closing. I called controller and said I had opp direction traffic at 12 O'clock, same altitude and asked if he was 'talking' to him. No reply. By that time the high wing aircraft was within 300' of my aircraft and we both took evasive action (turned away) in time. By the time the controller came back to me asking did I call, I told him what had happened and the conflict was over. His reply: 'roger.' hah! I called the facility after landing and spoke to a supervisor who called me later in the day to explain that at the time I called in the original question about the traffic, the controller was briefing his shift replacement. I asked which should take priority, IFR traffic in IMC on radar vectors, or briefing the relief controller, and what kind of reply was 'roger' after hearing of a near miss which the controller was not aware of due to his not responding to an aircraft call pertaining to traffic? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter contacted ATC and requested computer enhancement and tapes. Was given a runaround and after threats was able to listen to tapes. Controller was talking to another aircraft, but reporter still feels response not adequate. Reporter has had 3 near midair collision's on IFR flight plans. Does not build confidence.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT, IFR FLT PLAN, TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID SMA AT SAME ALT 12 O'CLOCK POSITION, OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

Narrative: IFR FLT PLAN BTWN OPF AND TMB (18 NM APART, BOTH FIELDS WERE IFR) ON RADAR VECTORS (210 DEGS). I LOOKED AHEAD AND SAW ACFT IN DISTANCE AT SAME ALT, OPP DIRECTION, HDG TOWARD ME, CLOSING. I CALLED CTLR AND SAID I HAD OPP DIRECTION TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK, SAME ALT AND ASKED IF HE WAS 'TALKING' TO HIM. NO REPLY. BY THAT TIME THE HIGH WING ACFT WAS WITHIN 300' OF MY ACFT AND WE BOTH TOOK EVASIVE ACTION (TURNED AWAY) IN TIME. BY THE TIME THE CTLR CAME BACK TO ME ASKING DID I CALL, I TOLD HIM WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND THE CONFLICT WAS OVER. HIS REPLY: 'ROGER.' HAH! I CALLED THE FAC AFTER LNDG AND SPOKE TO A SUPVR WHO CALLED ME LATER IN THE DAY TO EXPLAIN THAT AT THE TIME I CALLED IN THE ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT THE TFC, THE CTLR WAS BRIEFING HIS SHIFT REPLACEMENT. I ASKED WHICH SHOULD TAKE PRIORITY, IFR TFC IN IMC ON RADAR VECTORS, OR BRIEFING THE RELIEF CTLR, AND WHAT KIND OF REPLY WAS 'ROGER' AFTER HEARING OF A NEAR MISS WHICH THE CTLR WAS NOT AWARE OF DUE TO HIS NOT RESPONDING TO AN ACFT CALL PERTAINING TO TFC? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR CONTACTED ATC AND REQUESTED COMPUTER ENHANCEMENT AND TAPES. WAS GIVEN A RUNAROUND AND AFTER THREATS WAS ABLE TO LISTEN TO TAPES. CTLR WAS TALKING TO ANOTHER ACFT, BUT RPTR STILL FEELS RESPONSE NOT ADEQUATE. RPTR HAS HAD 3 NMAC'S ON IFR FLT PLANS. DOES NOT BUILD CONFIDENCE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.