PLT OF A C182 ON A NIGHT VFR FLT; NOTICED A C172 ON SIMILAR COURSE MAKING TURNS TOWARD HIS FLT PATH EACH TIME HE CHANGED HDGS TO ASSURE SEPARATION. POSTFLT DISCUSSION WITH THE PLT OF THE C172 DISCLOSED THAT HE WAS GETTING FLT FOLLOWING FROM ARTCC CTLR WHICH HAD DIRECTED HIM TO TURN TO ASSURE SEPARATION.

Narrative

THE PLT OF ACFT #2 ALLEGES A LACK OF ADEQUATE SEPARATION DURING THE CRUISE PORTION OF THE FLT. HE CLAIMS THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION. BASED UPON A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH THE PLT OF ACFT #2 AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FLT; BOTH ACFT WERE FLYING FROM ACK TO BED. I BELIEVE THAT ACFT #2 DEPARTED ACK ABOUT 5 MINS PRIOR TO MY DEP. I FLEW A MORE WESTWARDLY TRACK THAN A DIRECT RTE TO AVOID SUBSTANTIAL OVERWATER NIGHT OPS. I MONITORED CAPE APCH BUT WAS NOT USING FLT FOLLOWING. ABOUT 20 MINS INTO THE FLT; WHILE DSNDING FROM 4500 FT TO 3000 FT; I OBSERVED THAT I WAS OVERTAKING ANOTHER ACFT ABOUT 2 MI AHEAD. I SET UP TO PASS THAT ACFT ON HIS R; BUT THE ACFT MADE A R TURN TO A NORTHERLY HDG. I THEN TURNED L BACK TO MY ORIGINAL NW HDG AND AWAY FROM ACFT #2. I NOTICED ACFT #2 THEN MAKE A L HDG CHANGE. I THEN DECIDED NOT TO PASS ACFT #2 AND POSITIONED THE PLANES SO THAT ACFT #2 WAS AT MY 1-2 O'CLOCK POS; ABOUT 2 MI AWAY. THIS POS ALLOWED BOTH MYSELF AND MY COPLT A GOOD VIEW OF ACFT #2. I ALSO ENGAGED MY AUTOPLT TO MINIMIZE ANY HDG CHANGES I MIGHT INADVERTENTLY MAKE. DURING THE NEXT 10 MINS; OUR 2 ACFT WOULD MOVE APART AND THEN CLOSER TOGETHER; VARYING BTWN 1-2 MI. A FEW TIMES I CHANGED MY COURSE TO THE L TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE BTWN US. ACFT #2 CONTINUED TO MAKE SMALL L AND R HDG CHANGES. AT ONE POINT; ACFT #2 MADE A R TURN AND LEFT THE AREA. BASED UPON MY DISCUSSION WITH THE PLT OF ACFT #2; I BELIEVE THAT A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THAT HE WAS USING FLT FOLLOWING FROM ATC. WHEN I INITIALLY STARTED TO PASS HIS PLANE ON THE R; HE MADE A TURN TO THE R. WHEN I MOVED BACK TO THE L; HE MADE A TURN TO THE L. HE MADE THESE HDG CHANGES BASED ON ADVICE FROM ATC. EACH TIME; HOWEVER; WE HAD MADE A HDG CHANGE A MIN BEFORE. I BELIEVE THAT ATC; IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO AVOID A POTENTIAL CONFLICT; WAS VECTORING THE PLANE BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS POS AND TRACK. ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS MY FAILURE TO USE FLT FOLLOWING. AT THIS SEGMENT OF THE FLT; I WAS NO LONGER MONITORING THE SAME ATC CTLR AS ACFT #2. THE CTLR WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE IF I HAD ACFT #2 IN VIEW AND WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. TO BE SAFE; THE CTLR ADVISED ACFT #2; AFTER 10 MINS; TO MAKE A R TURN AWAY FROM OUR POS. AT NO POINT AFTER THE INITIAL COURSE CHANGES WAS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR A COLLISION. WE HAD ACFT #2 IN VIEW AT ALL TIMES AND HAD WIDENED OUR COURSE TO THE L SEVERAL TIMES TO ALLOW FOR MORE SPACE BTWN THE ACFT.