Narrative:

I was captain of aircraft #1, a PA32R, on the flight being discussed. The flight departed emt en route to udd. I picked up flight following after departure from emt. I was passed to psp approach upon reaching banning airport at a cruising altitude of 5500 ft. Psp told me to stay north or over interstate 10 above 3500 ft on my transition to udd. I acknowledged. Shorter after, I was told that there would be a B737 departing psp climbing northbound. I replied, 'looking.' when the aircraft was airborne, approximately 2 mi away, I acknowledged that the aircraft was in sight. I was told to maintain visual with the traffic, which was climbing. The B737 was advised of my position and altitude but did not have me in sight. The day was quite hazy and it was difficult to approximate his rate of climb. However, several times I have been notified of the same traffic departing in similar sits and the traffic has always been several thousand ft above us and no factor, even for wake turbulence. As the aircraft approached, I realized that we were on a collision course. To avoid the aircraft I made a sharp right turn and descended to 2500 ft. The B737 appeared to maintain at 3500 ft and continue straight ahead. After clear of traffic, I returned to 3500 ft and resumed my initial flight path. Immediately, the B737 reported a TCASII 500 ft warning. Approach replied by saying that my aircraft had the B737 in sight. I tried to explain that even though I had them in sight it was difficult to judge distance because of the haze. I also explained that I was under the impression that the B737 was climbing and figured he would be well above us prior to crossing my path. The approach controller replied 'roger' and nothing else was said about the situation. I believe that the cause of this near miss was a miscom on the part of all parties involved. A possible solution to the problem might be an altitude restr placed on the departing traffic when 2 aircraft will be crossing in such close proximity. Another solution might be a change of heading for the cruising aircraft to keep clear of the traffic. This situation made me realize how difficult it can be to determine rate of climb and flight path on a hazy day, even when you have traffic in sight. I believe the situation becomes more dangerous when you have 2 aircraft of such different performance capabilities.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA28 PLT TAKES EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID CLBING TFC IN PSP AIRSPACE.

Narrative: I WAS CAPT OF ACFT #1, A PA32R, ON THE FLT BEING DISCUSSED. THE FLT DEPARTED EMT ENRTE TO UDD. I PICKED UP FLT FOLLOWING AFTER DEP FROM EMT. I WAS PASSED TO PSP APCH UPON REACHING BANNING ARPT AT A CRUISING ALT OF 5500 FT. PSP TOLD ME TO STAY N OR OVER INTERSTATE 10 ABOVE 3500 FT ON MY TRANSITION TO UDD. I ACKNOWLEDGED. SHORTER AFTER, I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WOULD BE A B737 DEPARTING PSP CLBING NBOUND. I REPLIED, 'LOOKING.' WHEN THE ACFT WAS AIRBORNE, APPROX 2 MI AWAY, I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ACFT WAS IN SIGHT. I WAS TOLD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL WITH THE TFC, WHICH WAS CLBING. THE B737 WAS ADVISED OF MY POS AND ALT BUT DID NOT HAVE ME IN SIGHT. THE DAY WAS QUITE HAZY AND IT WAS DIFFICULT TO APPROXIMATE HIS RATE OF CLB. HOWEVER, SEVERAL TIMES I HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE SAME TFC DEPARTING IN SIMILAR SITS AND THE TFC HAS ALWAYS BEEN SEVERAL THOUSAND FT ABOVE US AND NO FACTOR, EVEN FOR WAKE TURB. AS THE ACFT APCHED, I REALIZED THAT WE WERE ON A COLLISION COURSE. TO AVOID THE ACFT I MADE A SHARP R TURN AND DSNDED TO 2500 FT. THE B737 APPEARED TO MAINTAIN AT 3500 FT AND CONTINUE STRAIGHT AHEAD. AFTER CLR OF TFC, I RETURNED TO 3500 FT AND RESUMED MY INITIAL FLT PATH. IMMEDIATELY, THE B737 RPTED A TCASII 500 FT WARNING. APCH REPLIED BY SAYING THAT MY ACFT HAD THE B737 IN SIGHT. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT EVEN THOUGH I HAD THEM IN SIGHT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO JUDGE DISTANCE BECAUSE OF THE HAZE. I ALSO EXPLAINED THAT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE B737 WAS CLBING AND FIGURED HE WOULD BE WELL ABOVE US PRIOR TO XING MY PATH. THE APCH CTLR REPLIED 'ROGER' AND NOTHING ELSE WAS SAID ABOUT THE SIT. I BELIEVE THAT THE CAUSE OF THIS NEAR MISS WAS A MISCOM ON THE PART OF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE PROB MIGHT BE AN ALT RESTR PLACED ON THE DEPARTING TFC WHEN 2 ACFT WILL BE XING IN SUCH CLOSE PROX. ANOTHER SOLUTION MIGHT BE A CHANGE OF HDG FOR THE CRUISING ACFT TO KEEP CLR OF THE TFC. THIS SIT MADE ME REALIZE HOW DIFFICULT IT CAN BE TO DETERMINE RATE OF CLB AND FLT PATH ON A HAZY DAY, EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE TFC IN SIGHT. I BELIEVE THE SIT BECOMES MORE DANGEROUS WHEN YOU HAVE 2 ACFT OF SUCH DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES.

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.