Narrative:

Small aircraft X being vectored out of bur vny airspace with smog/haze layer up to 5000-6000'. Difficult to see traffic called and mistook 1 aircraft for another small aircraft Y called by controller. I never saw the small aircraft Y but controller said it was a dangerous encounter and my fault for not being more vigilant and more specific re: traffic I saw. He was right. Under conditions I was flying I should have been more vigilant. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: bur was airport of small aircraft X departure and reporter was heading west for climb so sun was forward and to the left on hazy day. Controller called traffic at 11 O'clock and reporter glanced left and saw an aircraft well below him at about 10 O'clock and made an immediate acknowledgement that he had the traffic west/O looking further. Although reporter never did see the real traffic, small aircraft Y, controller told him it was co-altitude and came very close, prompting a strong complaint from the small aircraft Y pilot. Both of the other aircraft were on crossing headings left to right for reporter. Reporter feels he should have looked more carefully for the called traffic and should have conditioned his acknowledgement by saying 'well below me' or 'not a factor' or some such that would have given the controller a hint that he had locked on the wrong traffic. Reporter, of course, did not take evasive action since he never saw the other aircraft, and from what the controller told him afterward, neither did the other aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA ON CLIMBOUT WITH FLT FOLLOWING MISIDENTIFIES CALLED TRAFFIC AND HAS NMAC WITH THE REAL TRAFFIC.

Narrative: SMA X BEING VECTORED OUT OF BUR VNY AIRSPACE WITH SMOG/HAZE LAYER UP TO 5000-6000'. DIFFICULT TO SEE TFC CALLED AND MISTOOK 1 ACFT FOR ANOTHER SMA Y CALLED BY CTLR. I NEVER SAW THE SMA Y BUT CTLR SAID IT WAS A DANGEROUS ENCOUNTER AND MY FAULT FOR NOT BEING MORE VIGILANT AND MORE SPECIFIC RE: TFC I SAW. HE WAS RIGHT. UNDER CONDITIONS I WAS FLYING I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE VIGILANT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: BUR WAS ARPT OF SMA X DEP AND RPTR WAS HDG W FOR CLB SO SUN WAS FORWARD AND TO THE LEFT ON HAZY DAY. CTLR CALLED TFC AT 11 O'CLOCK AND RPTR GLANCED LEFT AND SAW AN ACFT WELL BELOW HIM AT ABOUT 10 O'CLOCK AND MADE AN IMMEDIATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HE HAD THE TFC W/O LOOKING FURTHER. ALTHOUGH RPTR NEVER DID SEE THE REAL TFC, SMA Y, CTLR TOLD HIM IT WAS CO-ALT AND CAME VERY CLOSE, PROMPTING A STRONG COMPLAINT FROM THE SMA Y PLT. BOTH OF THE OTHER ACFT WERE ON XING HDGS LEFT TO RIGHT FOR RPTR. RPTR FEELS HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED MORE CAREFULLY FOR THE CALLED TFC AND SHOULD HAVE CONDITIONED HIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY SAYING 'WELL BELOW ME' OR 'NOT A FACTOR' OR SOME SUCH THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE CTLR A HINT THAT HE HAD LOCKED ON THE WRONG TFC. RPTR, OF COURSE, DID NOT TAKE EVASIVE ACTION SINCE HE NEVER SAW THE OTHER ACFT, AND FROM WHAT THE CTLR TOLD HIM AFTERWARD, NEITHER DID THE OTHER ACFT.

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.