Narrative:

Corp X was on an IFR flight plan from sfm to eht. At 16000 over mht, air carrier Y was sighted by the pilot of X. Corp X was on a heading of 280 degree. Air carrier Y's heading was 330 degree. Air carrier Y was climbing through our assigned altitude of 16000. The center controller did not give us the air carrier as traffic nor did he give the air carrier us as traffic. I estimate that air carrier Y was 500' below us and 1 mi horizontal from us. I called the center to tell them, 'corp X has air carrier Y in sight,' and as we crossed in front of the air carrier, the air carrier pilot called the center and asked, 'who is the traffic crossing in front of us?' the center replied, 'corp X has you in sight.' in my opinion, the center controller did not give us proper IFR sep. Controller did not give either one of us as traffic, nor did he tell either one of us to maintain visual sep. 1) this problem was discovered by the pilot of corp X by visual contact. 2) no evasive action was taken. 3) both aircraft were on IFR flight plans. 4) the situation occurred because of human error. 5) I have no suggestion as to how to prevent this from happening again. Note. I would not classify this as a near miss, because no evasive action was taken. In my opinion, it was an incident. Supplemental information from acn 94170. Preoccupied with issuing VFR traffic and other functions at a sector where the radar associate function is no longer staffed, I failed to observe that the 2 above aircraft were a factor for each other. Some problem with overlap of data blocks. Attempt was made to issue altitude sep and latitude sep, but air carrier Y did not respond. My only suggestion is that at a low altitude in particular, the radar associate position should be staffed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION BETWEEN CORP JET AND WDB ACR. OPERATIONAL ERROR.

Narrative: CORP X WAS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN FROM SFM TO EHT. AT 16000 OVER MHT, ACR Y WAS SIGHTED BY THE PLT OF X. CORP X WAS ON A HDG OF 280 DEG. ACR Y'S HDG WAS 330 DEG. ACR Y WAS CLBING THROUGH OUR ASSIGNED ALT OF 16000. THE CENTER CTLR DID NOT GIVE US THE ACR AS TFC NOR DID HE GIVE THE ACR US AS TFC. I ESTIMATE THAT ACR Y WAS 500' BELOW US AND 1 MI HORIZ FROM US. I CALLED THE CENTER TO TELL THEM, 'CORP X HAS ACR Y IN SIGHT,' AND AS WE CROSSED IN FRONT OF THE ACR, THE ACR PLT CALLED THE CENTER AND ASKED, 'WHO IS THE TFC XING IN FRONT OF US?' THE CENTER REPLIED, 'CORP X HAS YOU IN SIGHT.' IN MY OPINION, THE CENTER CTLR DID NOT GIVE US PROPER IFR SEP. CTLR DID NOT GIVE EITHER ONE OF US AS TFC, NOR DID HE TELL EITHER ONE OF US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEP. 1) THIS PROB WAS DISCOVERED BY THE PLT OF CORP X BY VISUAL CONTACT. 2) NO EVASIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN. 3) BOTH ACFT WERE ON IFR FLT PLANS. 4) THE SITUATION OCCURRED BECAUSE OF HUMAN ERROR. 5) I HAVE NO SUGGESTION AS TO HOW TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. NOTE. I WOULD NOT CLASSIFY THIS AS A NEAR MISS, BECAUSE NO EVASIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN. IN MY OPINION, IT WAS AN INCIDENT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 94170. PREOCCUPIED WITH ISSUING VFR TFC AND OTHER FUNCTIONS AT A SECTOR WHERE THE RADAR ASSOCIATE FUNCTION IS NO LONGER STAFFED, I FAILED TO OBSERVE THAT THE 2 ABOVE ACFT WERE A FACTOR FOR EACH OTHER. SOME PROB WITH OVERLAP OF DATA BLOCKS. ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ISSUE ALT SEP AND LAT SEP, BUT ACR Y DID NOT RESPOND. MY ONLY SUGGESTION IS THAT AT A LOW ALT IN PARTICULAR, THE RADAR ASSOCIATE POS SHOULD BE STAFFED.

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.