Narrative:

Problem arose on departure climb out, we were cleared by the tower to depart to the northeast and climb to 3500 ft on a 060 degree heading and, at 2300 ft an aircraft was noticed at our 10 O'clock position (off left wing) and below us approximately 500 ft traveling eastbound. The aircraft passed below us and then turned nebound, paralleling our course, and began climbing. The aircraft was off our right wing, parallel our course, at which point I told the tower we had traffic off our wing at 3 O'clock. The tower acknowledged by saying 'roger.' the aircraft began turning northbound towards us, at which point we took evasive action to avoid the near miss. Once the aircraft began turning towards us, I questioned the tower again about the traffic, and again the tower only answered 'roger.' once we took evasive action turning away from the airplane, the airplane continued climbing and departed northbound. This incident raised several questions in my mind about the tower's responsibility. I feel it was the tower's responsibility to at least point out other known traffic in his airspace. This incident occurred in the class D airspace for lunken airport, cincinnati, oh. Upon landing, I telephoned the tower to try to clear up my questions. The controller's response was that once we radioed we had the traffic in sight, it was our responsibility to maintain visual separation, which I agree with. However I do feel that the tower should have pointed the traffic out to us. At this point the controller informed me that he was not in contact with the airplane in question, even though the airplane was in tower's airspace. If this is true, I feel that the controller could have at a minimum told us that the aircraft was in his airspace illegally and was not in contact with the tower. This warning would have increased our awareness about the situation. On our initial call stating that we had traffic off our wing, the way the controller stated, 'roger' gave me the impression that the tower was aware of the traffic and was under his control. The tower controller also told me that he wasn't paying much attention to us, because of several aircraft in the pattern doing takeoffs and lndgs. I feel the lack of communication on the tower controller's part about the traffic, was a direct factor in the near miss incident, especially after I brought the conflict to his attention. 2 separate occasions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNAUTH UNCOORD PENETRATION OF CLASS D AIRSPACE BY NORAC TFC. POTENTIAL CONFLICT.

Narrative: PROB AROSE ON DEP CLBOUT, WE WERE CLRED BY THE TWR TO DEPART TO THE NE AND CLB TO 3500 FT ON A 060 DEG HDG AND, AT 2300 FT AN ACFT WAS NOTICED AT OUR 10 O'CLOCK POS (OFF L WING) AND BELOW US APPROX 500 FT TRAVELING EBOUND. THE ACFT PASSED BELOW US AND THEN TURNED NEBOUND, PARALLELING OUR COURSE, AND BEGAN CLBING. THE ACFT WAS OFF OUR R WING, PARALLEL OUR COURSE, AT WHICH POINT I TOLD THE TWR WE HAD TFC OFF OUR WING AT 3 O'CLOCK. THE TWR ACKNOWLEDGED BY SAYING 'ROGER.' THE ACFT BEGAN TURNING NBOUND TOWARDS US, AT WHICH POINT WE TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID THE NEAR MISS. ONCE THE ACFT BEGAN TURNING TOWARDS US, I QUESTIONED THE TWR AGAIN ABOUT THE TFC, AND AGAIN THE TWR ONLY ANSWERED 'ROGER.' ONCE WE TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TURNING AWAY FROM THE AIRPLANE, THE AIRPLANE CONTINUED CLBING AND DEPARTED NBOUND. THIS INCIDENT RAISED SEVERAL QUESTIONS IN MY MIND ABOUT THE TWR'S RESPONSIBILITY. I FEEL IT WAS THE TWR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO AT LEAST POINT OUT OTHER KNOWN TFC IN HIS AIRSPACE. THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED IN THE CLASS D AIRSPACE FOR LUNKEN ARPT, CINCINNATI, OH. UPON LNDG, I TELEPHONED THE TWR TO TRY TO CLR UP MY QUESTIONS. THE CTLR'S RESPONSE WAS THAT ONCE WE RADIOED WE HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT, IT WAS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION, WHICH I AGREE WITH. HOWEVER I DO FEEL THAT THE TWR SHOULD HAVE POINTED THE TFC OUT TO US. AT THIS POINT THE CTLR INFORMED ME THAT HE WAS NOT IN CONTACT WITH THE AIRPLANE IN QUESTION, EVEN THOUGH THE AIRPLANE WAS IN TWR'S AIRSPACE. IF THIS IS TRUE, I FEEL THAT THE CTLR COULD HAVE AT A MINIMUM TOLD US THAT THE ACFT WAS IN HIS AIRSPACE ILLEGALLY AND WAS NOT IN CONTACT WITH THE TWR. THIS WARNING WOULD HAVE INCREASED OUR AWARENESS ABOUT THE SIT. ON OUR INITIAL CALL STATING THAT WE HAD TFC OFF OUR WING, THE WAY THE CTLR STATED, 'ROGER' GAVE ME THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TWR WAS AWARE OF THE TFC AND WAS UNDER HIS CTL. THE TWR CTLR ALSO TOLD ME THAT HE WASN'T PAYING MUCH ATTN TO US, BECAUSE OF SEVERAL ACFT IN THE PATTERN DOING TKOFS AND LNDGS. I FEEL THE LACK OF COM ON THE TWR CTLR'S PART ABOUT THE TFC, WAS A DIRECT FACTOR IN THE NEAR MISS INCIDENT, ESPECIALLY AFTER I BROUGHT THE CONFLICT TO HIS ATTN. 2 SEPARATE OCCASIONS.

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.