Narrative:

We were in a climb from 1000 ft to 8500 ft northbound. The climb angle limited forward visibility but I compensated for this by sitting up in my seat to scan for traffic. I had requested flight following from daytona beach departure and had been assigned a squawk code. They had confirmed radar contact. Upon passing 6000 ft; my scan detected an aircraft headed directly for us slightly above us. I lowered the nose and the other aircraft passed about 50 ft above us. I continued the climb. I called ATC to advise them that another aircraft had passed just above us. About 30 seconds later another aircraft (call sign ending in xx) called ATC to advise of an near midair collision with altitude and location that would indicate he was referring to us. ATC advised that he had seen both of us but that his workload was such that he did not have a chance to advise of the traffic. After landing; I contacted ATC by phone to discuss the matter. At this point they are handling it as a local issue and will be getting back to me regarding the results of their investigation. It was confirmed that the other aircraft was on an IFR flight plan. My main concern is safety and finding ways to prevent this type of situation from arising. During VFR conditions it is the responsibility of the pilot to see and avoid other aircraft. During the climb with a high pitch attitude; it can sometimes be difficult to spot other traffic over the nose. Great care needs to be taken and reliance on ATC to issue TA's can be an aid but cannot be relied upon.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BTWN BEECH C23 AND UNKNOWN ACFT IN DAB AIRSPACE.

Narrative: WE WERE IN A CLB FROM 1000 FT TO 8500 FT NBOUND. THE CLB ANGLE LIMITED FORWARD VISIBILITY BUT I COMPENSATED FOR THIS BY SITTING UP IN MY SEAT TO SCAN FOR TFC. I HAD REQUESTED FLT FOLLOWING FROM DAYTONA BEACH DEP AND HAD BEEN ASSIGNED A SQUAWK CODE. THEY HAD CONFIRMED RADAR CONTACT. UPON PASSING 6000 FT; MY SCAN DETECTED AN ACFT HEADED DIRECTLY FOR US SLIGHTLY ABOVE US. I LOWERED THE NOSE AND THE OTHER ACFT PASSED ABOUT 50 FT ABOVE US. I CONTINUED THE CLB. I CALLED ATC TO ADVISE THEM THAT ANOTHER ACFT HAD PASSED JUST ABOVE US. ABOUT 30 SECONDS LATER ANOTHER ACFT (CALL SIGN ENDING IN XX) CALLED ATC TO ADVISE OF AN NMAC WITH ALT AND LOCATION THAT WOULD INDICATE HE WAS REFERRING TO US. ATC ADVISED THAT HE HAD SEEN BOTH OF US BUT THAT HIS WORKLOAD WAS SUCH THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO ADVISE OF THE TFC. AFTER LNDG; I CONTACTED ATC BY PHONE TO DISCUSS THE MATTER. AT THIS POINT THEY ARE HANDLING IT AS A LCL ISSUE AND WILL BE GETTING BACK TO ME REGARDING THE RESULTS OF THEIR INVESTIGATION. IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE OTHER ACFT WAS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. MY MAIN CONCERN IS SAFETY AND FINDING WAYS TO PREVENT THIS TYPE OF SITUATION FROM ARISING. DURING VFR CONDITIONS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLT TO SEE AND AVOID OTHER ACFT. DURING THE CLB WITH A HIGH PITCH ATTITUDE; IT CAN SOMETIMES BE DIFFICULT TO SPOT OTHER TFC OVER THE NOSE. GREAT CARE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN AND RELIANCE ON ATC TO ISSUE TA'S CAN BE AN AID BUT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON.

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.