Narrative:

Flight was from san luis obispo to fresno chandler. When cruising level at 6500', I observed head-on traffic at 6700'. I had been receiving traffic advisories from lemoore and in close proximity expected to be told of aircraft in conflict, although I know VMC sep is pilot responsibility. An emergency was in progress and the controller's attention may have been diverted. I told the facility supervisor what I thought of the situation that had developed. Recommendations: controllers should make pilots aware of emergencys or traffic situations that will not allow them to continue traffic advisories. Although sep is pilot responsibility VFR, the pilot may dedicate more of his attention to other aspects of the flight if he believes traffic advisories are being given. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter described other aircraft and said there was no time for evasive action on part of either aircraft involved. He reiterated his discontent with the circumstance that he had been receiving advisories but when the controller turned his attention to an emergency situation he did not advise cancellation of flight following.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA, IN VFR CRUISE AND RECEIVING FLT FOLLOWING SERVICE, HAS NMAC WITH HEAD-ON TRAFFIC, NO ADVISORY.

Narrative: FLT WAS FROM SAN LUIS OBISPO TO FRESNO CHANDLER. WHEN CRUISING LEVEL AT 6500', I OBSERVED HEAD-ON TFC AT 6700'. I HAD BEEN RECEIVING TFC ADVISORIES FROM LEMOORE AND IN CLOSE PROX EXPECTED TO BE TOLD OF ACFT IN CONFLICT, ALTHOUGH I KNOW VMC SEP IS PLT RESPONSIBILITY. AN EMER WAS IN PROGRESS AND THE CTLR'S ATTN MAY HAVE BEEN DIVERTED. I TOLD THE FAC SUPVR WHAT I THOUGHT OF THE SITUATION THAT HAD DEVELOPED. RECOMMENDATIONS: CTLRS SHOULD MAKE PLTS AWARE OF EMERS OR TFC SITUATIONS THAT WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TFC ADVISORIES. ALTHOUGH SEP IS PLT RESPONSIBILITY VFR, THE PLT MAY DEDICATE MORE OF HIS ATTN TO OTHER ASPECTS OF THE FLT IF HE BELIEVES TFC ADVISORIES ARE BEING GIVEN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR DESCRIBED OTHER ACFT AND SAID THERE WAS NO TIME FOR EVASIVE ACTION ON PART OF EITHER ACFT INVOLVED. HE REITERATED HIS DISCONTENT WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HE HAD BEEN RECEIVING ADVISORIES BUT WHEN THE CTLR TURNED HIS ATTN TO AN EMER SITUATION HE DID NOT ADVISE CANCELLATION OF FLT FOLLOWING.

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.