Narrative:

While en route from gnoss field in novato, ca to hwd, I was under bay approach control jurisdiction. At approximately 20 mi northwest of the oak VOR I requested arsa service to hwd. I was radar idented 2-3 mi north of rebas intersection level at 2500'. At approximately 5 north of oak I was handed off to oak north tower and subsequently given a VFR descent at pilot's discretion on a routing direct to the hwd airport. I was given traffic information on an aircraft departing oak heading eastbound: 'traffic 12 O'clock, 1 1/2 mi eastbound at 1800'.' I never saw that traffic. As I approached abeam of oak, or 1 mi north of it, I was advised that radar service was terminated, and to remain on my present code and contact hwd tower on 125.8. At approximately 2-3 mi east of oak and 2-3 mi northwest of hwd, an small aircraft came out form behind the left post of my windshield. I estimate the aircraft to have been heading approximately 310 degrees (opp direction) about 300' below and 200' to my left. I asked hwd tower if there radar was working, and the controller said that it was. I then asked if he had the traffic that just missed me. He asked if oak tower had issued the traffic information. I said they had not! Upon my arrival at hwd, the controller advised me that the oak tower had issued traffic information to the small aircraft Y and that the small aircraft Y 'had me in sight all the way.' however, they neglected to advise me of the traffic!! I realize that in VFR conditions it is the responsibility of the PIC to see and avoid, but in this case I was busy setting up for the approach to hwd. I feel that I should have been advised of the ensuing traffic well before I was switched over to the hwd tower frequency. Here we have an arsa in the midst of a TCA. It is very difficult to get around this bay area west/O the use of ATC. The FAA feels that to increase control of certain airspace will serve the pilots in a more efficient way. With more restrictive airspace and not enough controllers to handle the increased traffic flow, I believe we should do away with the arsa and allow pilots to continue as before the arsa, in seeing and avoiding. Since traffic information is considered by the FAA to be an 'additional service' and not a top priority, the controllers should have a moral responsibility to issue traffic information.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC.

Narrative: WHILE ENRTE FROM GNOSS FIELD IN NOVATO, CA TO HWD, I WAS UNDER BAY APCH CTL JURISDICTION. AT APPROX 20 MI NW OF THE OAK VOR I REQUESTED ARSA SVC TO HWD. I WAS RADAR IDENTED 2-3 MI N OF REBAS INTXN LEVEL AT 2500'. AT APPROX 5 N OF OAK I WAS HANDED OFF TO OAK N TWR AND SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN A VFR DSNT AT PLT'S DISCRETION ON A ROUTING DIRECT TO THE HWD ARPT. I WAS GIVEN TFC INFO ON AN ACFT DEPARTING OAK HDG EBND: 'TFC 12 O'CLOCK, 1 1/2 MI EBND AT 1800'.' I NEVER SAW THAT TFC. AS I APCHED ABEAM OF OAK, OR 1 MI N OF IT, I WAS ADVISED THAT RADAR SVC WAS TERMINATED, AND TO REMAIN ON MY PRESENT CODE AND CONTACT HWD TWR ON 125.8. AT APPROX 2-3 MI E OF OAK AND 2-3 MI NW OF HWD, AN SMA CAME OUT FORM BEHIND THE LEFT POST OF MY WINDSHIELD. I ESTIMATE THE ACFT TO HAVE BEEN HDG APPROX 310 DEGS (OPP DIRECTION) ABOUT 300' BELOW AND 200' TO MY LEFT. I ASKED HWD TWR IF THERE RADAR WAS WORKING, AND THE CTLR SAID THAT IT WAS. I THEN ASKED IF HE HAD THE TFC THAT JUST MISSED ME. HE ASKED IF OAK TWR HAD ISSUED THE TFC INFO. I SAID THEY HAD NOT! UPON MY ARR AT HWD, THE CTLR ADVISED ME THAT THE OAK TWR HAD ISSUED TFC INFO TO THE SMA Y AND THAT THE SMA Y 'HAD ME IN SIGHT ALL THE WAY.' HOWEVER, THEY NEGLECTED TO ADVISE ME OF THE TFC!! I REALIZE THAT IN VFR CONDITIONS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PIC TO SEE AND AVOID, BUT IN THIS CASE I WAS BUSY SETTING UP FOR THE APCH TO HWD. I FEEL THAT I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE ENSUING TFC WELL BEFORE I WAS SWITCHED OVER TO THE HWD TWR FREQ. HERE WE HAVE AN ARSA IN THE MIDST OF A TCA. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET AROUND THIS BAY AREA W/O THE USE OF ATC. THE FAA FEELS THAT TO INCREASE CONTROL OF CERTAIN AIRSPACE WILL SERVE THE PLTS IN A MORE EFFICIENT WAY. WITH MORE RESTRICTIVE AIRSPACE AND NOT ENOUGH CTLRS TO HANDLE THE INCREASED TFC FLOW, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD DO AWAY WITH THE ARSA AND ALLOW PLTS TO CONTINUE AS BEFORE THE ARSA, IN SEEING AND AVOIDING. SINCE TFC INFO IS CONSIDERED BY THE FAA TO BE AN 'ADDITIONAL SVC' AND NOT A TOP PRIORITY, THE CTLRS SHOULD HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ISSUE TFC INFO.

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.