Narrative:

We were cruising 6000' on radar vectors IFR heading 280 on 110 radial of 113.6 (lax) 21 DME under coast approach control on frequency 127.2. We were advised traffic 10-11 O'clock 5700' climbing 2 mi. We replied that we were looking for the traffic. The other aircraft (a small low wing sel) announced that he saw us and as we looked again saw him making an evasive right turn. We had no time to maneuver before he passed 300' off of our left side at our altitude. If IMC or lower visibility had existed we would have had a midair collision. We called supervisor. He said the small aircraft was VFR. He seemed to think nothing could have been done to avert this near disaster. I disagree, as both aircraft were on radar and both were talking to the same controller. The controller should have vectored one or both aircraft to avoid the hazard.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMT JET HAD NMAC WITH SMA AT 6000'. BOTH ON SNA RADAR. JET IFR, SMA VFR.

Narrative: WE WERE CRUISING 6000' ON RADAR VECTORS IFR HDG 280 ON 110 RADIAL OF 113.6 (LAX) 21 DME UNDER COAST APCH CTL ON FREQ 127.2. WE WERE ADVISED TFC 10-11 O'CLOCK 5700' CLIMBING 2 MI. WE REPLIED THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE TFC. THE OTHER ACFT (A SMALL LOW WING SEL) ANNOUNCED THAT HE SAW US AND AS WE LOOKED AGAIN SAW HIM MAKING AN EVASIVE RIGHT TURN. WE HAD NO TIME TO MANEUVER BEFORE HE PASSED 300' OFF OF OUR LEFT SIDE AT OUR ALT. IF IMC OR LOWER VISIBILITY HAD EXISTED WE WOULD HAVE HAD A MIDAIR COLLISION. WE CALLED SUPVR. HE SAID THE SMALL ACFT WAS VFR. HE SEEMED TO THINK NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO AVERT THIS NEAR DISASTER. I DISAGREE, AS BOTH ACFT WERE ON RADAR AND BOTH WERE TALKING TO THE SAME CTLR. THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE VECTORED ONE OR BOTH ACFT TO AVOID THE HAZARD.

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