Narrative:

Problem arose when cancelling IFR and proceeding VFR to orange county airport. After being given vectors it was determined that a VFR arrival at sna airport would eliminate the need for an instrument approach. Coast approach notified me that cancellation was received and to proceed to sna airport via the huntington beach pier arrival procedure VFR. Within 10 seconds after cancelling IFR (in VFR conditions), an small aircraft Y appeared in the windscreen which was northbound at my altitude. Both aircraft took evasive action. Upon asking coast approach (disgruntedly) about the position of the small aircraft Y prior to cancelling IFR, the controller said 'I left my position on the screen to call sna tower to notify them of your arrival. (I was maintaining the same transponder code as originally assigned via my IFR flight plan) and when I looked back at my radar screen, both aircraft were converging.' he said, 'by that time, it was too late.' in the meantime sna airport had just gone IFR, and I inevitably had to fly the ILS approach anyway. This is where I believe the problem occurred. The airport was VFR and just turning IFR, and the controller was discussing this with the tower (pertaining probably to any inbound VFR traffic). The controller should have realized that my aircraft type has the ability to descend at an aggressive rate and the rate of closure of the 2 airplanes could have created a problem. Coast approach apologized for the lack of attention and continued to explain the situation at the airport which required me to go IFR again and climb back up to 4000 ft MSL for vectors to the approach in IMC conditions. Upon landing at sna airport (and flying the approach in WX which did deteriorate to the minimums in rain), I was given a note from the control tower to call coast TRACON, which I did. I spoke with the supervisor at the time and he specifically said that 'coast had really dropped the ball on that one.' he mentioned that the small aircraft Y was also talking to coast approach, which I felt hard to believe. The problem for me (in VFR conditions) was that the small aircraft Y was below and to my right which was right in my 'blind spot.' I actually believe that the small aircraft Y saw me, before I saw him. He was already in a severe right hand turn to avoid me as I pulled up and away to the left. I realize the rule of 'see and be seen' in VFR, but when in transition from IFR to VFR, it would be nice to know about other traffic in the vicinity, instead of just writing it off to 'VFR conditions.' note: although there was much WX in the area, both aircraft were clearly VFR. The problem occurs again that where the VFR WX is located on a mostly IFR day, that's where all the VFR traffic will be.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC AS SMT CANCELS IFR AND SMA IN SAME AIRSPACE.

Narrative: PROB AROSE WHEN CANCELLING IFR AND PROCEEDING VFR TO ORANGE COUNTY ARPT. AFTER BEING GIVEN VECTORS IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A VFR ARR AT SNA ARPT WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR AN INST APCH. COAST APCH NOTIFIED ME THAT CANCELLATION WAS RECEIVED AND TO PROCEED TO SNA ARPT VIA THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PIER ARR PROC VFR. WITHIN 10 SECONDS AFTER CANCELLING IFR (IN VFR CONDITIONS), AN SMA Y APPEARED IN THE WINDSCREEN WHICH WAS NBOUND AT MY ALT. BOTH ACFT TOOK EVASIVE ACTION. UPON ASKING COAST APCH (DISGRUNTEDLY) ABOUT THE POS OF THE SMA Y PRIOR TO CANCELLING IFR, THE CTLR SAID 'I LEFT MY POS ON THE SCREEN TO CALL SNA TWR TO NOTIFY THEM OF YOUR ARR. (I WAS MAINTAINING THE SAME XPONDER CODE AS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED VIA MY IFR FLT PLAN) AND WHEN I LOOKED BACK AT MY RADAR SCREEN, BOTH ACFT WERE CONVERGING.' HE SAID, 'BY THAT TIME, IT WAS TOO LATE.' IN THE MEANTIME SNA ARPT HAD JUST GONE IFR, AND I INEVITABLY HAD TO FLY THE ILS APCH ANYWAY. THIS IS WHERE I BELIEVE THE PROB OCCURRED. THE ARPT WAS VFR AND JUST TURNING IFR, AND THE CTLR WAS DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE TWR (PERTAINING PROBABLY TO ANY INBOUND VFR TFC). THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT MY ACFT TYPE HAS THE ABILITY TO DSND AT AN AGGRESSIVE RATE AND THE RATE OF CLOSURE OF THE 2 AIRPLANES COULD HAVE CREATED A PROB. COAST APCH APOLOGIZED FOR THE LACK OF ATTN AND CONTINUED TO EXPLAIN THE SIT AT THE ARPT WHICH REQUIRED ME TO GO IFR AGAIN AND CLB BACK UP TO 4000 FT MSL FOR VECTORS TO THE APCH IN IMC CONDITIONS. UPON LNDG AT SNA ARPT (AND FLYING THE APCH IN WX WHICH DID DETERIORATE TO THE MINIMUMS IN RAIN), I WAS GIVEN A NOTE FROM THE CTL TWR TO CALL COAST TRACON, WHICH I DID. I SPOKE WITH THE SUPVR AT THE TIME AND HE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT 'COAST HAD REALLY DROPPED THE BALL ON THAT ONE.' HE MENTIONED THAT THE SMA Y WAS ALSO TALKING TO COAST APCH, WHICH I FELT HARD TO BELIEVE. THE PROB FOR ME (IN VFR CONDITIONS) WAS THAT THE SMA Y WAS BELOW AND TO MY R WHICH WAS R IN MY 'BLIND SPOT.' I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THE SMA Y SAW ME, BEFORE I SAW HIM. HE WAS ALREADY IN A SEVERE R HAND TURN TO AVOID ME AS I PULLED UP AND AWAY TO THE L. I REALIZE THE RULE OF 'SEE AND BE SEEN' IN VFR, BUT WHEN IN TRANSITION FROM IFR TO VFR, IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW ABOUT OTHER TFC IN THE VICINITY, INSTEAD OF JUST WRITING IT OFF TO 'VFR CONDITIONS.' NOTE: ALTHOUGH THERE WAS MUCH WX IN THE AREA, BOTH ACFT WERE CLRLY VFR. THE PROB OCCURS AGAIN THAT WHERE THE VFR WX IS LOCATED ON A MOSTLY IFR DAY, THAT'S WHERE ALL THE VFR TFC WILL BE.

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.