Narrative:

While receiving radar vectors from hulman approach (heading 150 degrees) for a VOR 23 approach into huf, traffic was initially called as being at 10-11 O'clock, nebnd, type and altitude unknown. Distance was 5-7 mi at the time. Traffic was called twice again, with only the distance changing to 3-5 mi, then 2-3 mi. At no time did I (PNF) or my first officer (PF) attain visibility contact with the traffic. The next transmission from the approach controller leads me to believe he was mis-calling the traffic position in relation to us. He said that traffic was now at our 1-2 O'clock position, nebnd, less than 1 mi. Once again, type and altitude unknown. My immediate reply was for a change in heading if the targets were to merge. Huf approach told us to turn left to a heading of 090 degrees and I read back the clearance. I had no sooner unkeyed the microphone when the first officer (PF) said 'there he is!,' and the traffic began to fill his window. I immediately assumed control of the aircraft and entered at least a 45-60 degree aob turn to the left to avoid a collision, which was maybe seconds away. I rolled out on about a 040 degree heading, advised approach of the near collision and requested vectors north and then west around the traffic, which he did, and we landed west/O further event. The traffic was legal as far as altitude, even though a poor choice, and was VFR in MVFR conditions, but never made any communications with huf approach. Had he done so, he could have avoided the above incident.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC AS FLT CREW IS LOOKING IN THE DIRECTION APCH CTLR REPORTED TRAFFIC. WRONG DIRECTION. LAST CALL FROM CTLR WAS IN PROPER RELATION TO ACFT X AND TRAFFIC WAS SIGHTED AFTER PIC REQUESTED A TURN TO AVOID UNSIGHTED TRAFFIC.

Narrative: WHILE RECEIVING RADAR VECTORS FROM HULMAN APCH (HDG 150 DEGS) FOR A VOR 23 APCH INTO HUF, TFC WAS INITIALLY CALLED AS BEING AT 10-11 O'CLOCK, NEBND, TYPE AND ALT UNKNOWN. DISTANCE WAS 5-7 MI AT THE TIME. TFC WAS CALLED TWICE AGAIN, WITH ONLY THE DISTANCE CHANGING TO 3-5 MI, THEN 2-3 MI. AT NO TIME DID I (PNF) OR MY F/O (PF) ATTAIN VIS CONTACT WITH THE TFC. THE NEXT XMISSION FROM THE APCH CTLR LEADS ME TO BELIEVE HE WAS MIS-CALLING THE TFC POS IN RELATION TO US. HE SAID THAT TFC WAS NOW AT OUR 1-2 O'CLOCK POS, NEBND, LESS THAN 1 MI. ONCE AGAIN, TYPE AND ALT UNKNOWN. MY IMMEDIATE REPLY WAS FOR A CHANGE IN HDG IF THE TARGETS WERE TO MERGE. HUF APCH TOLD US TO TURN LEFT TO A HDG OF 090 DEGS AND I READ BACK THE CLRNC. I HAD NO SOONER UNKEYED THE MIC WHEN THE F/O (PF) SAID 'THERE HE IS!,' AND THE TFC BEGAN TO FILL HIS WINDOW. I IMMEDIATELY ASSUMED CONTROL OF THE ACFT AND ENTERED AT LEAST A 45-60 DEG AOB TURN TO THE LEFT TO AVOID A COLLISION, WHICH WAS MAYBE SECS AWAY. I ROLLED OUT ON ABOUT A 040 DEG HDG, ADVISED APCH OF THE NEAR COLLISION AND REQUESTED VECTORS N AND THEN W AROUND THE TFC, WHICH HE DID, AND WE LANDED W/O FURTHER EVENT. THE TFC WAS LEGAL AS FAR AS ALT, EVEN THOUGH A POOR CHOICE, AND WAS VFR IN MVFR CONDITIONS, BUT NEVER MADE ANY COMS WITH HUF APCH. HAD HE DONE SO, HE COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE ABOVE INCIDENT.

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.