Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BGM.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E BGM
ATC / advisory: TRACON BGM
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X departed BGM and requested vectors for a VOR-A approach into CZG airport. Aircraft Y Departed CZG and requested VFR flight following to B16. I assigned Aircraft X and heading of 250 for his base leg to the final approach course. I noticed Aircraft Y a half mile west of the final approach course and I told him to turn left heading of 270. I reviewed the approach plate and then looked up and saw Aircraft X 3/4 of a mile east of the approach course and began to initiate his approach clearance. I was using degree divergence and thought I would have enough room to follow through with the approach but once I realized the proximity of the aircraft I no longer had time to issue a safety alert. When Aircraft X was reading back the approach clearance he said on frequency 'watch out!' Aircraft X began to question me about the traffic and was very upset with the closeness to the other aircraft. Aircraft Y advised me he had Aircraft X in sight and requested to proceed on course which I approved. Aircraft X reported the aircraft was a half mile in front of him of his nose while he was in the turn. This event developed mainly to my lack of attention to the closure rate of these aircraft. Also I distracted myself by reviewing the approach plate when that time should have been spent watching the scope.


Second narrative: I was practicing the VOR-A approach into CZG under VFR conditions; under the hood. After receiving the last vector from BGM Approach to intercept the approach course and just before intercepting the approach course radial; my safety pilot grabbed control of the aircraft and made a descending left turn to avoid an oncoming Cherokee aircraft coming from the opposite direction. At about the same time; the pilot of the other aircraft also made a left turn. My safety pilot immediately called ATC and told the Controller of the near miss and expressed concern that neither we nor the other aircraft were given traffic advisories. The other aircraft had been monitoring the Approach frequency and responded that we were probably about .5 miles apart; but my safety pilot believed that it was much closer and that the other pilot was attempting to downplay the occurrence. Later on in the day; I flew solo from BGM to CZG VFR and after establishing contact with BGM Approach; the same Controller apologized for the earlier incident. After informing Approach that I had CZG in sight; I asked if there was any traffic near CZG and the Controller responded that there was another aircraft 2 miles west of the field at 2;200 FT. I wondered why; especially after the earlier incident; the Controller had still not advised of the traffic since it was likely about 4 miles from my position.Likely factors in this incident were inexperience of the ATC Controller (cannot verify but he sounded young and inexperienced and I had heard that BGM is used for training inexperienced controllers since it is not a busy area) and general complacency of all people involved since it was a beautiful morning without much traffic.


Synopsis: Report of NMAC due to Controller not issuing traffic because he was looking at the approach plate.