ATCT LCL CTLR WAS ADVISED BY A PA44 THAT HAD DEPARTED HIS ARPT; THAT HE HAD AN NMAC WITH AN UNKNOWN SMA APPROX 3 MI NE OF THE ARPT. THE CTLR HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE SMA AND CITES THE FACT THAT HIS TWR DOES NOT HAVE RADAR.

Narrative

THE PA44 DEPARTED RWY 4 AND CLBED OUT TO NE; OUT OF SIGHT; THEN HE RPTED TFC 3 MI NE OF ARPT SBOUND AT 1800 FT; A WHITE AIRPLANE 'LIKE A PIPER CUB' (SMA Y). THE PA44 RPTED THAT THEY'D ALMOST COLLIDED. I INFORMED THE PA44 THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY TFC IN THAT VICINITY; BUT THAT IF I HAD HAD RADAR I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE ISSUED AN ADVISORY. LATER I ASKED THE PA44 IF EVASIVE ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN; TO WHICH HE REPLIED THAT HE HAD REDUCED BOTH THROTTLES TO IDLE AND TURNED HARD L TO PASS BEHIND THE OTHER ACFT BY ABOUT 500 FT; SAME ALT. HUMAN PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS: OUR CONGRESSMAN; UNFORTUNATELY; DOESN'T LIVE IN THIS DISTRICT TO USE HIS INFLUENCE TO GET US RADAR AS HE HAS FOR SFB. ALSO; THE MULTI-ENG TRAINING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE PA44 WAS ENGAGED DEMANDS MUCH ATTN INSIDE THE COCKPIT; AND I CAN'T SEE THAT FAR WHILE STILL SCANNING MY OTHER TFC. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: INTENSIVE STUDENT TRAINING ACTIVITY (6000-8000 HRS PER MONTH) ORIGINATES FROM THIS ARPT; YET THERE'S NOT SO MUCH AS A LITTLE GOLD STAR ON THE SECTIONAL CHART TO ALERT TRANSIENT PLTS TO THIS FACT. ALSO; THE FAA'S FAILURE TO INSTITUTE/ENDORSE/PERMIT LOW COST; USER FRIENDLY AIRBORNE COLLISION AVOIDANCE EQUIP FOR LIGHT ACFT. LASTLY; THE FAILURE OF THE FAA TO ESTABLISH A DEDICATED RADAR APCH CTL ENVIRONMENT TO SERVE THE VRB-FPR AREA WHICH ROUTINELY RECORDS TFC ACTIVITY IN THE RANGE OF 1/3 OF A MILLION OPS PER YR.