Narrative:

Flight was saw-lax on 7/tue/89. Flight was cleared direct to sli after having executed the initial portion of the san-peble departure. Flight proceeded to sli on 148 degree right at assigned altitude of 7000' (flight was on autoplt altitude hold and VOR track). At the 148 right/7, captain suddenly saw a twin engine aircraft at 12 O'clock, less than 1 mi, opp direction, approximately 200' above. No time was available for evasive action. The traffic was not called by approach control. Additional factors were: 1) controller was extremely busy--typically 6-7 xmissions in a row before a break. 2) controller was in a training situation--trnee on the radio backed by a supervisor. 3) captain was not able to ask controller about traffic for about 1 1/2-2 mins. Supervisor then stated he saw no traffic (although he did mention traffic at 8 O'clock at 8300' (distance and direction of flight not understood--unable to continue conversation due to workload). 4) conversation with lax approach supervisor after landing reaffirmed information in above statement--no traffic seen. It was assumed by the captain that a twin in this area would have a mode C transponder and that an altitude readout would have been seen by approach--was it missed under the circumstances? If the aircraft had no transponder or if it was off, wouldn't there at least have been a skin paint, and if so, was it missed? If there was no skin paint, shouldn't there have been, considering the capabilities of the radar? Finally, it should be noted that the aircraft was so close, the sound of its engines was heard by both pilots.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG HAD NMAC WITH SMT.

Narrative: FLT WAS SAW-LAX ON 7/TUE/89. FLT WAS CLRED DIRECT TO SLI AFTER HAVING EXECUTED THE INITIAL PORTION OF THE SAN-PEBLE DEP. FLT PROCEEDED TO SLI ON 148 DEG R AT ASSIGNED ALT OF 7000' (FLT WAS ON AUTOPLT ALT HOLD AND VOR TRACK). AT THE 148 R/7, CAPT SUDDENLY SAW A TWIN ENG ACFT AT 12 O'CLOCK, LESS THAN 1 MI, OPP DIRECTION, APPROX 200' ABOVE. NO TIME WAS AVAILABLE FOR EVASIVE ACTION. THE TFC WAS NOT CALLED BY APCH CTL. ADDITIONAL FACTORS WERE: 1) CTLR WAS EXTREMELY BUSY--TYPICALLY 6-7 XMISSIONS IN A ROW BEFORE A BREAK. 2) CTLR WAS IN A TRNING SITUATION--TRNEE ON THE RADIO BACKED BY A SUPVR. 3) CAPT WAS NOT ABLE TO ASK CTLR ABOUT TFC FOR ABOUT 1 1/2-2 MINS. SUPVR THEN STATED HE SAW NO TFC (ALTHOUGH HE DID MENTION TFC AT 8 O'CLOCK AT 8300' (DISTANCE AND DIRECTION OF FLT NOT UNDERSTOOD--UNABLE TO CONTINUE CONVERSATION DUE TO WORKLOAD). 4) CONVERSATION WITH LAX APCH SUPVR AFTER LNDG REAFFIRMED INFO IN ABOVE STATEMENT--NO TFC SEEN. IT WAS ASSUMED BY THE CAPT THAT A TWIN IN THIS AREA WOULD HAVE A MODE C XPONDER AND THAT AN ALT READOUT WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN BY APCH--WAS IT MISSED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? IF THE ACFT HAD NO XPONDER OR IF IT WAS OFF, WOULDN'T THERE AT LEAST HAVE BEEN A SKIN PAINT, AND IF SO, WAS IT MISSED? IF THERE WAS NO SKIN PAINT, SHOULDN'T THERE HAVE BEEN, CONSIDERING THE CAPABILITIES OF THE RADAR? FINALLY, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ACFT WAS SO CLOSE, THE SOUND OF ITS ENGS WAS HEARD BY BOTH PLTS.

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.