Narrative:

4/89, we had departed borrego springs airport en route to san. Over julian VOR, I called san approach and requested clearance to lindbergh. We were at 8500' MSL and assigned a heading of 210 degrees. I tuned in the localizer runway 27. The first officer was flying the aircraft and said he had the airport in sight. The DME read 27.3. I also had the airport in sight and advised ATC. We were told to descent to 7500', which I set in the altitude alert. We were asked by ATC to keep our speed up to the airport. The first officer began the descent and called for the descent and approach checklist. I informed the first officer that I was leaving the frequency. When I completed the short briefing, I informed the first officer that I was going to call company. When I completed the transmission to company, the first officer was talking to ATC saying traffic in sight. He was looking out the window at about 2 O'clock. I did not see any traffic. As I was looking the first officer said, 'gee, air carrier Y looks close.' at that point I saw a widebody transport through the first officer's right side window about 1 1/2 mi at the same altitude and closing. I immediately pushed forward on the yoke to increase the descent for evasive action. We passed below the nose of air carrier Y crossing his path left to right at about 1/2 mi and about 300-400' below. I asked ATC if air carrier Y had us in sight. ATC responded saying, 'I show you at 5500'.' the first officer said we were supposed to be at 6500'. I was looking at my altimeter which showed 5500' and then at the altitude alert which still showed 7500'. I informed ATC that we had seen a conflict. When I spoke to the supervisor, he informed me that air carrier Y was at 6000'. On 3/sun/89 I was PIC from la to san. We were on an IFR flight plan. The WX conditions were VFR. The sun had set and it was dusk. At our assigned altitude of 9000' MSL, we were handed off to coast approach. We were assigned a heading of 090 degrees to intercept the mzb 320 degree right. While on the heading of 090 degrees, ATC called traffic at 9 O'clock at 9500' an air carrier Z light transport. I looked out my side window and saw the traffic behind the left wind and closing on a heading of approximately 120 degrees. The 2 of us passed directly on top of one another. When passing someone transmitted 'howdy' on the frequency. When I landed at san, one of the lady passenger came up to the cockpit and asked me if back there when we were flying if I had seen that other airplane. I told her that I had. She then said that it looked awfully close. I then explained to her that we were both in radar contact. She said it still looked too close. In 3/89 I was PIC from psp to la. When contacting departure control we requested a VFR climb on course. We were told to climb VFR on course to intercept V388 and maintain 10000'. As we were intercepting V388 we were told to climb and maintain 11000'. We were told that we had traffic at 6 O'clock, 7 mi at 10000'. Traffic said they had us in sight. We had not reached 10000' yet. ATC then called traffic at 4 O'clock. The first officer looked out and told me that he had the traffic in sight and I said call it, since I could not see it from my seat. The first officer continued to monitor the traffic and as we were passing 10300', the first officer said they looked awfully close. I looked out his right side window and saw the recognition lights of the aircraft at the same time the first officer said, 'I'd pull up,' which I did. As the 2 aircraft passed directly over one another someone transmitted, 'howdy.' as a concerned pilot, I would like to see a re-evaluation of the sep of aircraft. Even though in all 3 situations at least one crew member had the traffic in sight, and one aircraft was under IFR and one aircraft was under VFR, we are all counting on every factor being exact at that instant when both aircraft cross. I would gladly accept a vector and/or an airspeed change to maintain some horizontal distance from passing another high performance aircraft. There is plenty of airspace out there so that 2 aircraft do not have to be over the same piece of real estate with only 500' sep, especially under positive control.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER FLT CREW COMPLAINT ABOUT SEPARATION STANDARDS BETWEEN IFR VFR TRAFFIC. 3 EXAMPLES GIVEN IN EACH OF WHICH FLT CREW DISCRETION AND TECHNIQUE FLYING WAS AT FAULT.

Narrative: 4/89, WE HAD DEPARTED BORREGO SPRINGS ARPT ENRTE TO SAN. OVER JULIAN VOR, I CALLED SAN APCH AND REQUESTED CLRNC TO LINDBERGH. WE WERE AT 8500' MSL AND ASSIGNED A HDG OF 210 DEGS. I TUNED IN THE LOC RWY 27. THE F/O WAS FLYING THE ACFT AND SAID HE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. THE DME READ 27.3. I ALSO HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND ADVISED ATC. WE WERE TOLD TO DSCNT TO 7500', WHICH I SET IN THE ALT ALERT. WE WERE ASKED BY ATC TO KEEP OUR SPD UP TO THE ARPT. THE F/O BEGAN THE DSCNT AND CALLED FOR THE DSCNT AND APCH CHKLIST. I INFORMED THE F/O THAT I WAS LEAVING THE FREQ. WHEN I COMPLETED THE SHORT BRIEFING, I INFORMED THE F/O THAT I WAS GOING TO CALL COMPANY. WHEN I COMPLETED THE XMISSION TO COMPANY, THE F/O WAS TALKING TO ATC SAYING TFC IN SIGHT. HE WAS LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW AT ABOUT 2 O'CLOCK. I DID NOT SEE ANY TFC. AS I WAS LOOKING THE F/O SAID, 'GEE, ACR Y LOOKS CLOSE.' AT THAT POINT I SAW A WDB THROUGH THE F/O'S RIGHT SIDE WINDOW ABOUT 1 1/2 MI AT THE SAME ALT AND CLOSING. I IMMEDIATELY PUSHED FORWARD ON THE YOKE TO INCREASE THE DSCNT FOR EVASIVE ACTION. WE PASSED BELOW THE NOSE OF ACR Y XING HIS PATH LEFT TO RIGHT AT ABOUT 1/2 MI AND ABOUT 300-400' BELOW. I ASKED ATC IF ACR Y HAD US IN SIGHT. ATC RESPONDED SAYING, 'I SHOW YOU AT 5500'.' THE F/O SAID WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE AT 6500'. I WAS LOOKING AT MY ALTIMETER WHICH SHOWED 5500' AND THEN AT THE ALT ALERT WHICH STILL SHOWED 7500'. I INFORMED ATC THAT WE HAD SEEN A CONFLICT. WHEN I SPOKE TO THE SUPVR, HE INFORMED ME THAT ACR Y WAS AT 6000'. ON 3/SUN/89 I WAS PIC FROM LA TO SAN. WE WERE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. THE WX CONDITIONS WERE VFR. THE SUN HAD SET AND IT WAS DUSK. AT OUR ASSIGNED ALT OF 9000' MSL, WE WERE HANDED OFF TO COAST APCH. WE WERE ASSIGNED A HDG OF 090 DEGS TO INTERCEPT THE MZB 320 DEG R. WHILE ON THE HDG OF 090 DEGS, ATC CALLED TFC AT 9 O'CLOCK AT 9500' AN ACR Z LTT. I LOOKED OUT MY SIDE WINDOW AND SAW THE TFC BEHIND THE LEFT WIND AND CLOSING ON A HDG OF APPROX 120 DEGS. THE 2 OF US PASSED DIRECTLY ON TOP OF ONE ANOTHER. WHEN PASSING SOMEONE XMITTED 'HOWDY' ON THE FREQ. WHEN I LANDED AT SAN, ONE OF THE LADY PAX CAME UP TO THE COCKPIT AND ASKED ME IF BACK THERE WHEN WE WERE FLYING IF I HAD SEEN THAT OTHER AIRPLANE. I TOLD HER THAT I HAD. SHE THEN SAID THAT IT LOOKED AWFULLY CLOSE. I THEN EXPLAINED TO HER THAT WE WERE BOTH IN RADAR CONTACT. SHE SAID IT STILL LOOKED TOO CLOSE. IN 3/89 I WAS PIC FROM PSP TO LA. WHEN CONTACTING DEP CTL WE REQUESTED A VFR CLB ON COURSE. WE WERE TOLD TO CLB VFR ON COURSE TO INTERCEPT V388 AND MAINTAIN 10000'. AS WE WERE INTERCEPTING V388 WE WERE TOLD TO CLB AND MAINTAIN 11000'. WE WERE TOLD THAT WE HAD TFC AT 6 O'CLOCK, 7 MI AT 10000'. TFC SAID THEY HAD US IN SIGHT. WE HAD NOT REACHED 10000' YET. ATC THEN CALLED TFC AT 4 O'CLOCK. THE F/O LOOKED OUT AND TOLD ME THAT HE HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT AND I SAID CALL IT, SINCE I COULD NOT SEE IT FROM MY SEAT. THE F/O CONTINUED TO MONITOR THE TFC AND AS WE WERE PASSING 10300', THE F/O SAID THEY LOOKED AWFULLY CLOSE. I LOOKED OUT HIS RIGHT SIDE WINDOW AND SAW THE RECOGNITION LIGHTS OF THE ACFT AT THE SAME TIME THE F/O SAID, 'I'D PULL UP,' WHICH I DID. AS THE 2 ACFT PASSED DIRECTLY OVER ONE ANOTHER SOMEONE XMITTED, 'HOWDY.' AS A CONCERNED PLT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A RE-EVALUATION OF THE SEP OF ACFT. EVEN THOUGH IN ALL 3 SITUATIONS AT LEAST ONE CREW MEMBER HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT, AND ONE ACFT WAS UNDER IFR AND ONE ACFT WAS UNDER VFR, WE ARE ALL COUNTING ON EVERY FACTOR BEING EXACT AT THAT INSTANT WHEN BOTH ACFT CROSS. I WOULD GLADLY ACCEPT A VECTOR AND/OR AN AIRSPD CHANGE TO MAINTAIN SOME HORIZ DISTANCE FROM PASSING ANOTHER HIGH PERFORMANCE ACFT. THERE IS PLENTY OF AIRSPACE OUT THERE SO THAT 2 ACFT DO NOT HAVE TO BE OVER THE SAME PIECE OF REAL ESTATE WITH ONLY 500' SEP, ESPECIALLY UNDER POSITIVE CONTROL.

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.