Narrative:

C172 called over vancouver lake inbound to vuo on the vuo CTAF. I issued traffic on a heavy inbound for pdx. I found out today that a helicopter was northbound head-on with C172. I don't recall seeing the target. On the replay it looked liked they both turned to avoid each other. I believe fatigue was an issue as well. I should have seen and called traffic. Even though neither was radar identified; I can guess where C172 might be and at least give him something to look for. If there is traffic on my scope; I should see it and take appropriate action; whether I'm specifically required to or not. Having said that; it was two VFR aircraft; neither radar identified; outside class C and class D airspace. I had no communication with one aircraft; and the other was transiting to an uncontrolled airport (vuo) on a common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). The pearson advisory position was created to issue pdx traffic overflying vuo on the vuo CTAF. ATC should not be on a CTAF at an uncontrolled airport. It confuses many of the pilots. A CTAF is for pilots to talk to each other and separate themselves. When a pilot hears ATC on frequency; doesn't he expect us to provide more service than we are giving? Pilots frequently withhold their pattern calls because ATC is on frequency. They probably think we are controlling the pattern. The current vuo procedures are a joke. The pearson advisory position is a joke. Pearson advisory is not a radar position; nor a tower position. I guess it's more of a flight service position? Whatever it is; it's half-baked and dangerous. Due to proximity to pdx; there needs be a tower at vuo; with radar capabilities; staffed by pdx controllers.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PDX Controller described a VFR conflict event between two unidentified targets; noting the current procedures covering transiting aircraft are in need of revision.

Narrative: C172 called over Vancouver Lake inbound to VUO on the VUO CTAF. I issued traffic on a heavy inbound for PDX. I found out today that a helicopter was northbound head-on with C172. I don't recall seeing the target. On the replay it looked liked they both turned to avoid each other. I believe fatigue was an issue as well. I should have seen and called traffic. Even though neither was RADAR identified; I can guess where C172 might be and at least give him something to look for. If there is traffic on my scope; I should see it and take appropriate action; whether I'm specifically required to or not. Having said that; it was two VFR aircraft; neither RADAR identified; outside Class C and Class D airspace. I had no communication with one aircraft; and the other was transiting to an uncontrolled airport (VUO) on a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF). The Pearson Advisory position was created to issue PDX traffic overflying VUO on the VUO CTAF. ATC should not be on a CTAF at an uncontrolled airport. It confuses many of the pilots. A CTAF is for pilots to talk to each other and separate themselves. When a pilot hears ATC on frequency; doesn't he expect us to provide more service than we are giving? Pilots frequently withhold their pattern calls because ATC is on frequency. They probably think we are controlling the pattern. The current VUO procedures are a joke. The Pearson Advisory position is a joke. Pearson Advisory is not a RADAR position; nor a tower position. I guess it's more of a flight service position? Whatever it is; it's half-baked and dangerous. Due to proximity to PDX; there needs be a tower at VUO; with RADAR capabilities; staffed by PDX controllers.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.