NMAC BTWN A BE35 AND A COMMUTER TURBOPROP AT 4500 FT; OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC; 8 MI SE OF CVV; WA.

Date: 2002-09 · Aircraft: Bonanza 35 · Phase: cruise

Anomalies: atc-issue-all-types|conflict-nmac|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy

Synopsis

NMAC BTWN A BE35 AND A COMMUTER TURBOPROP AT 4500 FT; OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC; 8 MI SE OF CVV; WA.

Narrative

I WAS FLYING A HEADING OF 310 DEGS AT AN ALT OF 4500 FT DURING CRUISE FLT. I WAS RECEIVING VFR RA'S FROM WHIDBEY APCH. I SAW A PLANE ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH ME APPEAR TO 'BLOSSOM' AT MY 12-1 O'CLOCK POS; OPPOSITE DIRECTION; LESS THAN A MI; POSSIBLY WAS IN A SLIGHT CLB. IMMEDIATE ACTION WAS REQUIRED TO AVOID A COLLISION. I MADE A L DSNDING TURN; THE OTHER ACFT MADE A L CLBING TURN. IT APPEARS THE OTHER PLT SAW ME AT THE SAME TIME I SAW HIM AND ALSO TOOK IMMEDIATE ACTION. AS THE OTHER PLANE PASSED WITHIN 300 FT OFF MY R WING; I COULD CLRLY SEE THE AIRLINE'S LOGO. SOON AFTER WE PASSED; WHIDBEY APCH CALLED ME. MY REPLY WAS; 'THAT WAS CLOSE.' THE CTLR SAID 'I'M NOT TALKING TO HIM; WHAT IS HIS ALT?' I REPLIED 'APPROX 4700 FT.' THERE WAS NO FURTHER COM FROM ATC REGARDING THIS NEAR MIDAIR COLLISION. I BELIEVE THE APCH CTLR SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A TFC WARNING FOR THE AIRLINER. THE ONLY REASON A COLLISION WAS AVOIDED WAS DUE TO BOTH PLTS; 'SEE AND AVOID' ACTIONS. THIS INCIDENT LEAVES MANY QUESTIONS UNANSWERED. WHY WASN'T THE AIRLINER TALKING TO WHIDBEY APCH? WHY DIDN'T THE CTLR HAVE AN ALT READOUT? WHY DIDN'T THE AIRLINER AVOID ME SOONER? WHO WAS THE AIRLINER TALKING TO? DID THE AIRLINER HAVE A TCASII SYS? IT SEEMS MANY THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO AVOID THIS NEAR MIDAIR.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.