Narrative:

We departed orange county/john wayne airport (sna), destination: sun valley, identification (sun). Our departure clearance had us on radar vectors to intercept the sxc 084 degree radial to sxc then direct lax, flight plan route. Shortly after clearing the newport beach, ca, shoreline, we were given a heading of 210 degrees and an assigned altitude of 8000 ft. The controller advised us of traffic (metroliner) at a position of 1-2 O'clock relative to our aircraft. Shortly thereafter, my first officer reported traffic which he believed to be the traffic pointed out by ATC. ATC then issued us a climb clearance to 10000 ft, but instructed us to maintain visual separation from the reported traffic. I never saw this reported traffic and queried my first officer as to where the traffic was before I initiated a climb. My first officer told me 'the traffic' was passing opposite direction off the right side of our aircraft and would be no factor to our flight path. Thinking we were clear of our traffic, I began the climb to 10000 ft, on a heading of 210 degrees. During the climb I noticed another 'metroliner' aircraft passing left to right and below us. I also became aware that the sun was low and bright, which was causing a slight distraction. While in this climb my attention was also focused inside the cockpit, at my HSI because my heading clearance of 210 degrees was to intercept the sxc 084 degree radial to sxc. This radial was soon to be 'alive.' the controller then told us, 'we could proceed direct to sxc if we like,' making no further mention of conflicting traffic. I centered the CDI needle and turned direct to sxc with the use of the 'heading mode' on our autoplt. We were approaching 9000 ft in our climb to 10000 ft. I then refocused my attention outside the cockpit where I noticed traffic at our 1-2 O'clock position. At first I thought it to be a large 'B747' type of aircraft located much farther away. Continuing to observe this traffic, I soon realized it was much closer to us than previously thought and that this traffic was closing in on our intended flight path from opposite direction and to our right. I disengaged autoplt and tightened my right turn, but the closure rate as well as my delayed reaction to the traffic had brought our 2 aircraft extremely close to one another. The pilot of the other aircraft, metroliner, came on frequency (128.10), obviously upset and said to the controller, 'I thought you said that aircraft had us in sight!' I then realized this was the traffic we were supposed to have reported in sight and to have maintained visual separation from. We continued the rest of our flight (uneventful) to our destination, sun, where I contacted socal TRACON via telephone to explain what had happened. Incidentally, the pilot of the other aircraft filed a 'near midair collision report.' human performance considerations: although there were numerous aircraft flying in our vicinity, the first officer may have been hasty in reporting the appropriate traffic in sight. Per company policy he also should not report an aircraft or airport in sight until both pilots (he and I) have visual contact. Having believed my first officer and that we were clear of our reported traffic, I had erroneously believed that I had a clear path in our climb from 8000 ft to 10000 ft. Because of this I diverted some of my attention from outside to inside the cockpit. After hearing a clearance from ATC which said, 'I could proceed direct to sxc if I'd like to,' with no further mention to our traffic, I had no reason to believe we had a traffic conflict. The conflicting traffic was initially hidden from our sight due to the bright, lowering sun. We therefore couldn't see what we were supposed to avoid. While operating on an instrument flight plan, our company will no longer accept a clearance which requires us to remain clear of certain aircraft or obstacles unless both pilots have a positive identify. Although we much appreciate the help of ATC to expedite our climbs to more fuel-efficient altitudes, I would recommend this type of clearance (maintain visual separation) not be given while in a busy terminal area, especially when it can be seen that the flight paths of the 2 aircraft will be in close proximity to one another. Although it is the ultimate responsibility of the PIC to 'see and avoid,' I think the controller could have been more assertive in again pointing out our conflicting traffic once it was seen thatour flight paths would be coming as close together as they did. Since there were numerous aircraft sighted in our vicinity, it might have also been helpful if ATC had pointed them out to differentiate them from the one they had intended us to avoid.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORP ACFT HAS NMAC WITH METROLINER WHEN FO SIGHTS WRONG TFC FOR VISUAL SEPARATION.

Narrative: WE DEPARTED ORANGE COUNTY/JOHN WAYNE ARPT (SNA), DEST: SUN VALLEY, ID (SUN). OUR DEP CLRNC HAD US ON RADAR VECTORS TO INTERCEPT THE SXC 084 DEG RADIAL TO SXC THEN DIRECT LAX, FLT PLAN RTE. SHORTLY AFTER CLRING THE NEWPORT BEACH, CA, SHORELINE, WE WERE GIVEN A HDG OF 210 DEGS AND AN ASSIGNED ALT OF 8000 FT. THE CTLR ADVISED US OF TFC (METROLINER) AT A POS OF 1-2 O'CLOCK RELATIVE TO OUR ACFT. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, MY FO RPTED TFC WHICH HE BELIEVED TO BE THE TFC POINTED OUT BY ATC. ATC THEN ISSUED US A CLB CLRNC TO 10000 FT, BUT INSTRUCTED US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM THE RPTED TFC. I NEVER SAW THIS RPTED TFC AND QUERIED MY FO AS TO WHERE THE TFC WAS BEFORE I INITIATED A CLB. MY FO TOLD ME 'THE TFC' WAS PASSING OPPOSITE DIRECTION OFF THE R SIDE OF OUR ACFT AND WOULD BE NO FACTOR TO OUR FLT PATH. THINKING WE WERE CLR OF OUR TFC, I BEGAN THE CLB TO 10000 FT, ON A HDG OF 210 DEGS. DURING THE CLB I NOTICED ANOTHER 'METROLINER' ACFT PASSING L TO R AND BELOW US. I ALSO BECAME AWARE THAT THE SUN WAS LOW AND BRIGHT, WHICH WAS CAUSING A SLIGHT DISTR. WHILE IN THIS CLB MY ATTN WAS ALSO FOCUSED INSIDE THE COCKPIT, AT MY HSI BECAUSE MY HDG CLRNC OF 210 DEGS WAS TO INTERCEPT THE SXC 084 DEG RADIAL TO SXC. THIS RADIAL WAS SOON TO BE 'ALIVE.' THE CTLR THEN TOLD US, 'WE COULD PROCEED DIRECT TO SXC IF WE LIKE,' MAKING NO FURTHER MENTION OF CONFLICTING TFC. I CTRED THE CDI NEEDLE AND TURNED DIRECT TO SXC WITH THE USE OF THE 'HDG MODE' ON OUR AUTOPLT. WE WERE APCHING 9000 FT IN OUR CLB TO 10000 FT. I THEN REFOCUSED MY ATTN OUTSIDE THE COCKPIT WHERE I NOTICED TFC AT OUR 1-2 O'CLOCK POS. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT TO BE A LARGE 'B747' TYPE OF ACFT LOCATED MUCH FARTHER AWAY. CONTINUING TO OBSERVE THIS TFC, I SOON REALIZED IT WAS MUCH CLOSER TO US THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT AND THAT THIS TFC WAS CLOSING IN ON OUR INTENDED FLT PATH FROM OPPOSITE DIRECTION AND TO OUR R. I DISENGAGED AUTOPLT AND TIGHTENED MY R TURN, BUT THE CLOSURE RATE AS WELL AS MY DELAYED REACTION TO THE TFC HAD BROUGHT OUR 2 ACFT EXTREMELY CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER. THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT, METROLINER, CAME ON FREQ (128.10), OBVIOUSLY UPSET AND SAID TO THE CTLR, 'I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT ACFT HAD US IN SIGHT!' I THEN REALIZED THIS WAS THE TFC WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE RPTED IN SIGHT AND TO HAVE MAINTAINED VISUAL SEPARATION FROM. WE CONTINUED THE REST OF OUR FLT (UNEVENTFUL) TO OUR DEST, SUN, WHERE I CONTACTED SOCAL TRACON VIA TELEPHONE TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAD HAPPENED. INCIDENTALLY, THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT FILED A 'NMAC RPT.' HUMAN PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS: ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NUMEROUS ACFT FLYING IN OUR VICINITY, THE FO MAY HAVE BEEN HASTY IN RPTING THE APPROPRIATE TFC IN SIGHT. PER COMPANY POLICY HE ALSO SHOULD NOT RPT AN ACFT OR ARPT IN SIGHT UNTIL BOTH PLTS (HE AND I) HAVE VISUAL CONTACT. HAVING BELIEVED MY FO AND THAT WE WERE CLR OF OUR RPTED TFC, I HAD ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVED THAT I HAD A CLR PATH IN OUR CLB FROM 8000 FT TO 10000 FT. BECAUSE OF THIS I DIVERTED SOME OF MY ATTN FROM OUTSIDE TO INSIDE THE COCKPIT. AFTER HEARING A CLRNC FROM ATC WHICH SAID, 'I COULD PROCEED DIRECT TO SXC IF I'D LIKE TO,' WITH NO FURTHER MENTION TO OUR TFC, I HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE WE HAD A TFC CONFLICT. THE CONFLICTING TFC WAS INITIALLY HIDDEN FROM OUR SIGHT DUE TO THE BRIGHT, LOWERING SUN. WE THEREFORE COULDN'T SEE WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO AVOID. WHILE OPERATING ON AN INST FLT PLAN, OUR COMPANY WILL NO LONGER ACCEPT A CLRNC WHICH REQUIRES US TO REMAIN CLR OF CERTAIN ACFT OR OBSTACLES UNLESS BOTH PLTS HAVE A POSITIVE IDENT. ALTHOUGH WE MUCH APPRECIATE THE HELP OF ATC TO EXPEDITE OUR CLBS TO MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT ALTS, I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS TYPE OF CLRNC (MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION) NOT BE GIVEN WHILE IN A BUSY TERMINAL AREA, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE FLT PATHS OF THE 2 ACFT WILL BE IN CLOSE PROX TO ONE ANOTHER. ALTHOUGH IT IS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PIC TO 'SEE AND AVOID,' I THINK THE CTLR COULD HAVE BEEN MORE ASSERTIVE IN AGAIN POINTING OUT OUR CONFLICTING TFC ONCE IT WAS SEEN THATOUR FLT PATHS WOULD BE COMING AS CLOSE TOGETHER AS THEY DID. SINCE THERE WERE NUMEROUS ACFT SIGHTED IN OUR VICINITY, IT MIGHT HAVE ALSO BEEN HELPFUL IF ATC HAD POINTED THEM OUT TO DIFFERENTIATE THEM FROM THE ONE THEY HAD INTENDED US TO AVOID.

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.