Narrative:

Incident is likely a combination of poor communications and combination of a hard-to-judge situation in VFR in sna approach corridor. ATP and B737 rated reporter departed ful to udd on IFR flight plan in VFR conditions. Departure was contacted; headings and altitudes assigned. As assigned route via trm would have led through area of twx approximately 30 NM down; IFR was canceled after few mins with approach and VFR direct pdz climbing to initially 6500 ft requested and pilot navigation without restrs obtained. Upon passing 3000 ft; traffic calls for 2 airliners received; visual contact established; and visual separation of several mi maintained without problem. A third TA was issued around 500 ft; an A320 about 7 mi at 10 'for the airport.' at this point; the A320 was in a turn; but lacking EFIS or a detailed moving map in my airplane and not knowing of the true target airport; I was unaware of its intended rollout heading; and the situation looked well separated. Keeping an eye on the A320 at all times; through position #2 and #3 it became clear that this is developing into a converging situation; and I decided for an immediate climb and a right evasive turn; leading to the A320 passing behind me about 500 ft below and approximately 2 SM away. I advised that I was clear and visual separation maintained at all times. The A320 and the controller then assured each other that they felt that I did not properly avoid the A320 (some tactical necessity to cover their position; I assume); amplified by the fact that the next controller made sure that I affirmed that IFR was canceled with the previous controller (which probably again voids the necessity for a near miss report). Lessons: 1) cancellation of IFR in wkend rush hour in vicinity of busy approach path was a bad idea. Controller on his side should not have accepted cancellation; if unable to work it. He is aware of what is coming down the approach corridor; and should have issued altitude or heading restrs; or; later on; RA's. 2) 'for the airport' is not a clear assignment that let one judge where an airplane in a turn is going to roll out. A specific airport (ok) or a rollout heading (better) or an RA (best; which in this case probably would have been an early left turn) should have been issued. I should have immediately questioned that 'for the airport' call and verified what the A320's intentions are. 3) I am confused about the colleague in the A320 (I received B737 air carrier also) who must have had me both visually and on the TCAS; and kept turning dead on into a target. Visual separation is both pilot's responsibility; irrespective of IFR flight plan or controller; in particular if one is maneuvering and has all the TCAS at his disposal.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IFR C340 DEP FROM FUL CANCELED IFR WITH SCT; WAS ISSUED A320 ACR TFC INTO SNA; ACCEPTED VISUAL SEPARATION; AND THEN CONFLICTED WITH THE ACR.

Narrative: INCIDENT IS LIKELY A COMBINATION OF POOR COMS AND COMBINATION OF A HARD-TO-JUDGE SITUATION IN VFR IN SNA APCH CORRIDOR. ATP AND B737 RATED RPTR DEPARTED FUL TO UDD ON IFR FLT PLAN IN VFR CONDITIONS. DEP WAS CONTACTED; HDGS AND ALTS ASSIGNED. AS ASSIGNED RTE VIA TRM WOULD HAVE LED THROUGH AREA OF TWX APPROX 30 NM DOWN; IFR WAS CANCELED AFTER FEW MINS WITH APCH AND VFR DIRECT PDZ CLBING TO INITIALLY 6500 FT REQUESTED AND PLT NAV WITHOUT RESTRS OBTAINED. UPON PASSING 3000 FT; TFC CALLS FOR 2 AIRLINERS RECEIVED; VISUAL CONTACT ESTABLISHED; AND VISUAL SEPARATION OF SEVERAL MI MAINTAINED WITHOUT PROB. A THIRD TA WAS ISSUED AROUND 500 FT; AN A320 ABOUT 7 MI AT 10 'FOR THE ARPT.' AT THIS POINT; THE A320 WAS IN A TURN; BUT LACKING EFIS OR A DETAILED MOVING MAP IN MY AIRPLANE AND NOT KNOWING OF THE TRUE TARGET ARPT; I WAS UNAWARE OF ITS INTENDED ROLLOUT HDG; AND THE SITUATION LOOKED WELL SEPARATED. KEEPING AN EYE ON THE A320 AT ALL TIMES; THROUGH POS #2 AND #3 IT BECAME CLR THAT THIS IS DEVELOPING INTO A CONVERGING SITUATION; AND I DECIDED FOR AN IMMEDIATE CLB AND A R EVASIVE TURN; LEADING TO THE A320 PASSING BEHIND ME ABOUT 500 FT BELOW AND APPROX 2 SM AWAY. I ADVISED THAT I WAS CLR AND VISUAL SEPARATION MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES. THE A320 AND THE CTLR THEN ASSURED EACH OTHER THAT THEY FELT THAT I DID NOT PROPERLY AVOID THE A320 (SOME TACTICAL NECESSITY TO COVER THEIR POS; I ASSUME); AMPLIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE NEXT CTLR MADE SURE THAT I AFFIRMED THAT IFR WAS CANCELED WITH THE PREVIOUS CTLR (WHICH PROBABLY AGAIN VOIDS THE NECESSITY FOR A NEAR MISS RPT). LESSONS: 1) CANCELLATION OF IFR IN WKEND RUSH HR IN VICINITY OF BUSY APCH PATH WAS A BAD IDEA. CTLR ON HIS SIDE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED CANCELLATION; IF UNABLE TO WORK IT. HE IS AWARE OF WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE APCH CORRIDOR; AND SHOULD HAVE ISSUED ALT OR HDG RESTRS; OR; LATER ON; RA'S. 2) 'FOR THE ARPT' IS NOT A CLR ASSIGNMENT THAT LET ONE JUDGE WHERE AN AIRPLANE IN A TURN IS GOING TO ROLL OUT. A SPECIFIC ARPT (OK) OR A ROLLOUT HDG (BETTER) OR AN RA (BEST; WHICH IN THIS CASE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EARLY L TURN) SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED. I SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY QUESTIONED THAT 'FOR THE ARPT' CALL AND VERIFIED WHAT THE A320'S INTENTIONS ARE. 3) I AM CONFUSED ABOUT THE COLLEAGUE IN THE A320 (I RECEIVED B737 ACR ALSO) WHO MUST HAVE HAD ME BOTH VISUALLY AND ON THE TCAS; AND KEPT TURNING DEAD ON INTO A TARGET. VISUAL SEPARATION IS BOTH PLT'S RESPONSIBILITY; IRRESPECTIVE OF IFR FLT PLAN OR CTLR; IN PARTICULAR IF ONE IS MANEUVERING AND HAS ALL THE TCAS AT HIS DISPOSAL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.