Narrative:

Our flight was level at 7000' MSL. We were sebnd on a victor airway approaching an inbound fix to ord. Sky condition was clear, but visibility was restr by haze. Rockford approach notified us of VFR traffic at 2 O'clock. Searched for traffic, first officer spotted traffic 3/4 mi away at approximately 3 O'clock and 100' below. Traffic was nnebound. First officer took evasive action by pulling back on control wheel and banking left. Traffic, what we believe to have been a yellow small transport took no evasive action and passed directly beneath us. I feel that we were scanning for the traffic with the best of our abilities. Flying into the morning sun, coupled with the haze, made finding traffic difficult. Unfortunately we did not find this traffic until it was real close. I believe the controller did a good job of notifying us of traffic. It was one of the more busier times for rockford approach that morning. I feel a recurrence can be prevented. All that is needed is that VFR flight crew that is flying within the boundaries of an approach control communicate with someone. If this person had communicated with rockford, I am sure that rockford would have advised that person of our position, and a conflict could have been avoided. Also, I feel rockford approach would have advised this person that a lower altitude would be more appropriate due to inbound arrival altitudes for ord. If we ever do achieve better communication, it will never replace 'see and avoid'. Even though we did not see the traffic until it was very close, I do not want to think about the consequences if we had not been looking.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BETWEEN SMT AND LTT IN MARGINAL VFR CONDITIONS. LTT ON IFR CLRNC WITH SMT AT IMPROPER ALT VERSUS HEADING AND NOT IN RADIO CONTACT.

Narrative: OUR FLT WAS LEVEL AT 7000' MSL. WE WERE SEBND ON A VICTOR AIRWAY APCHING AN INBND FIX TO ORD. SKY CONDITION WAS CLEAR, BUT VISIBILITY WAS RESTR BY HAZE. ROCKFORD APCH NOTIFIED US OF VFR TFC AT 2 O'CLOCK. SEARCHED FOR TFC, F/O SPOTTED TFC 3/4 MI AWAY AT APPROX 3 O'CLOCK AND 100' BELOW. TFC WAS NNEBOUND. F/O TOOK EVASIVE ACTION BY PULLING BACK ON CONTROL WHEEL AND BANKING LEFT. TFC, WHAT WE BELIEVE TO HAVE BEEN A YELLOW SMT TOOK NO EVASIVE ACTION AND PASSED DIRECTLY BENEATH US. I FEEL THAT WE WERE SCANNING FOR THE TFC WITH THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES. FLYING INTO THE MORNING SUN, COUPLED WITH THE HAZE, MADE FINDING TFC DIFFICULT. UNFORTUNATELY WE DID NOT FIND THIS TFC UNTIL IT WAS REAL CLOSE. I BELIEVE THE CTLR DID A GOOD JOB OF NOTIFYING US OF TFC. IT WAS ONE OF THE MORE BUSIER TIMES FOR ROCKFORD APCH THAT MORNING. I FEEL A RECURRENCE CAN BE PREVENTED. ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS THAT VFR FLT CREW THAT IS FLYING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF AN APCH CTL COMMUNICATE WITH SOMEONE. IF THIS PERSON HAD COMMUNICATED WITH ROCKFORD, I AM SURE THAT ROCKFORD WOULD HAVE ADVISED THAT PERSON OF OUR POSITION, AND A CONFLICT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. ALSO, I FEEL ROCKFORD APCH WOULD HAVE ADVISED THIS PERSON THAT A LOWER ALT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE DUE TO INBND ARRIVAL ALTS FOR ORD. IF WE EVER DO ACHIEVE BETTER COMMUNICATION, IT WILL NEVER REPLACE 'SEE AND AVOID'. EVEN THOUGH WE DID NOT SEE THE TFC UNTIL IT WAS VERY CLOSE, I DO NOT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES IF WE HAD NOT BEEN LOOKING.

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.