Narrative:

After departure from el monte airport, I contacted burbank approach for clearance through the arsa nwbnd, climbing to 8500' en route to hayward, ca, VFR, and requested flight following service. Burbank controller issued a discrete transponder code and began calling out targets. Several min after leveling at 8500', I saw a target at my 12 to 1 O'clock position converging directly head on, approximately 1 mi range. It was a medium size twin, with landing lights burning. I pushed the nose down immediately and several second later the twin passed overhead with not more than 200' vertical and 75' horizontal clearance. The target was not called by the burbank controller. I immediately called burbank approach and asked if they had seen the near midair collision I just had with a twin. At first, there was no response. I called again. This time the controller said, 'no, we didn't see anything.' upon further prompting, the controller said, 'oh, there's a twin being worked by left.a. Center, but he's 5 mi behind you now.' I apprised the controller of how close we had come. His response was, 'you are at 8500' and the twin is at 9000'.' when I told him it was too close, his response was that there was 500' of clearance, and that, 'that's all you need.' I submit that that is not 'all you need,' and the controller's responses were entirely too cavalier. A small difference in altimeter settings in 2 aircraft can reduce the legal 500' sep dangerously, as can a small altitude deviation by 1 or the other crew. This one came too close. I don't believe the crew of the twin ever saw me, for no evasive action was apparent. I realize the FAA cop-out is that they are 'not legally required' to issue traffic advisories to VFR aircraft, but when we are asked to participate in the system, and they pull this kind of irresponsible crap, one does tend to lose faith in the institution.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX GA-SMA GA-SMT IFR VFR COMBO NORTH OF BUT.

Narrative: AFTER DEP FROM EL MONTE ARPT, I CONTACTED BURBANK APCH FOR CLRNC THROUGH THE ARSA NWBND, CLBING TO 8500' ENRTE TO HAYWARD, CA, VFR, AND REQUESTED FLT FOLLOWING SVC. BURBANK CTLR ISSUED A DISCRETE TRANSPONDER CODE AND BEGAN CALLING OUT TARGETS. SEVERAL MIN AFTER LEVELING AT 8500', I SAW A TARGET AT MY 12 TO 1 O'CLOCK POS CONVERGING DIRECTLY HEAD ON, APPROX 1 MI RANGE. IT WAS A MEDIUM SIZE TWIN, WITH LNDG LIGHTS BURNING. I PUSHED THE NOSE DOWN IMMEDIATELY AND SEVERAL SEC LATER THE TWIN PASSED OVERHEAD WITH NOT MORE THAN 200' VERTICAL AND 75' HORIZ CLRNC. THE TARGET WAS NOT CALLED BY THE BURBANK CTLR. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED BURBANK APCH AND ASKED IF THEY HAD SEEN THE NMAC I JUST HAD WITH A TWIN. AT FIRST, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. I CALLED AGAIN. THIS TIME THE CTLR SAID, 'NO, WE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING.' UPON FURTHER PROMPTING, THE CTLR SAID, 'OH, THERE'S A TWIN BEING WORKED BY L.A. CENTER, BUT HE'S 5 MI BEHIND YOU NOW.' I APPRISED THE CTLR OF HOW CLOSE WE HAD COME. HIS RESPONSE WAS, 'YOU ARE AT 8500' AND THE TWIN IS AT 9000'.' WHEN I TOLD HIM IT WAS TOO CLOSE, HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT THERE WAS 500' OF CLRNC, AND THAT, 'THAT'S ALL YOU NEED.' I SUBMIT THAT THAT IS NOT 'ALL YOU NEED,' AND THE CTLR'S RESPONSES WERE ENTIRELY TOO CAVALIER. A SMALL DIFFERENCE IN ALTIMETER SETTINGS IN 2 ACFT CAN REDUCE THE LEGAL 500' SEP DANGEROUSLY, AS CAN A SMALL ALT DEVIATION BY 1 OR THE OTHER CREW. THIS ONE CAME TOO CLOSE. I DON'T BELIEVE THE CREW OF THE TWIN EVER SAW ME, FOR NO EVASIVE ACTION WAS APPARENT. I REALIZE THE FAA COP-OUT IS THAT THEY ARE 'NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED' TO ISSUE TFC ADVISORIES TO VFR ACFT, BUT WHEN WE ARE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SYS, AND THEY PULL THIS KIND OF IRRESPONSIBLE CRAP, ONE DOES TEND TO LOSE FAITH IN THE INSTITUTION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.