Narrative:

Your reporter had departed coi for a VFR flight to omn to drop off a passenger. Your reporter was making a slow climb to 2500 ft MSL. No VFR radar service had been requested but pafb RAPCON was being monitored. While east of tix a communication between pafb RAPCON and our aerostar, also VFR northbound out of coi was overheard. Pafb RAPCON reported to the aerostar traffic also northbound at 12 O'clock and 1800 ft. The aerostar pilot reported that he had this traffic in sight. Your reporter at that time was at 1800 ft and believed that the traffic idented by pafb RAPCON to the aerostar pilot was your reporter's aircraft. Your reporter continued to climb very gradually and was not able to see the overtaking traffic which was behind and above at 2500 ft reported altitude. Approximately 2-3 mins later while east of X21 this reporter's aircraft was climbing through 2350 ft and was passed directly overhead by the aerostar at an estimated 100 plus or minus ft of vertical separation. No evasive action was taken by your reporter nor did the aerostar appear to have taken any evasive action. Your reporter questioned my passenger for their estimate of the vertical separation and they confirmed their estimate as 100 ft or so. Your reporter then made a radio call to pafb RAPCON to report the incident and advised the 100 plus or minus ft near miss. Pafb RAPCON contacted the aerostar pilot who said he passed 400 ft overhead. Your reporter responded to this by affirming the 100 ft distance. Your reporter believes the aerostar pilot did not maintain visual contact with the reported traffic and assumed he would pass clear overhead. Pafb RAPCON, although not technically further responsible, did not advise the aerostar further of the potential conflict and in particular the altitude closure by the reported traffic. Your reporter 'assumed' the aerostar would maintain adequate visual separation and continued to climb without the aerostar being in sight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC, SEE AND AVOID.

Narrative: YOUR RPTR HAD DEPARTED COI FOR A VFR FLT TO OMN TO DROP OFF A PAX. YOUR RPTR WAS MAKING A SLOW CLB TO 2500 FT MSL. NO VFR RADAR SVC HAD BEEN REQUESTED BUT PAFB RAPCON WAS BEING MONITORED. WHILE E OF TIX A COM BTWN PAFB RAPCON AND OUR AEROSTAR, ALSO VFR NBOUND OUT OF COI WAS OVERHEARD. PAFB RAPCON RPTED TO THE AEROSTAR TFC ALSO NBOUND AT 12 O'CLOCK AND 1800 FT. THE AEROSTAR PLT RPTED THAT HE HAD THIS TFC IN SIGHT. YOUR RPTR AT THAT TIME WAS AT 1800 FT AND BELIEVED THAT THE TFC IDENTED BY PAFB RAPCON TO THE AEROSTAR PLT WAS YOUR RPTR'S ACFT. YOUR RPTR CONTINUED TO CLB VERY GRADUALLY AND WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE THE OVERTAKING TFC WHICH WAS BEHIND AND ABOVE AT 2500 FT RPTED ALT. APPROX 2-3 MINS LATER WHILE E OF X21 THIS RPTR'S ACFT WAS CLBING THROUGH 2350 FT AND WAS PASSED DIRECTLY OVERHEAD BY THE AEROSTAR AT AN ESTIMATED 100 PLUS OR MINUS FT OF VERT SEPARATION. NO EVASIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN BY YOUR RPTR NOR DID THE AEROSTAR APPEAR TO HAVE TAKEN ANY EVASIVE ACTION. YOUR RPTR QUESTIONED MY PAX FOR THEIR ESTIMATE OF THE VERT SEPARATION AND THEY CONFIRMED THEIR ESTIMATE AS 100 FT OR SO. YOUR RPTR THEN MADE A RADIO CALL TO PAFB RAPCON TO RPT THE INCIDENT AND ADVISED THE 100 PLUS OR MINUS FT NEAR MISS. PAFB RAPCON CONTACTED THE AEROSTAR PLT WHO SAID HE PASSED 400 FT OVERHEAD. YOUR RPTR RESPONDED TO THIS BY AFFIRMING THE 100 FT DISTANCE. YOUR RPTR BELIEVES THE AEROSTAR PLT DID NOT MAINTAIN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE RPTED TFC AND ASSUMED HE WOULD PASS CLR OVERHEAD. PAFB RAPCON, ALTHOUGH NOT TECHNICALLY FURTHER RESPONSIBLE, DID NOT ADVISE THE AEROSTAR FURTHER OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT AND IN PARTICULAR THE ALT CLOSURE BY THE RPTED TFC. YOUR RPTR 'ASSUMED' THE AEROSTAR WOULD MAINTAIN ADEQUATE VISUAL SEPARATION AND CONTINUED TO CLB WITHOUT THE AEROSTAR BEING IN SIGHT.

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.