TRACON controller described a conflict event between an air carrier departure and a photo mission ai...

Narrative:

Cessna 206 was on a pre-coordinated photo mission on a VFR flight plan. His flight track was north/south northeast and southeast of the airport. I knew this route had the potential to conflict with the SID X; or SID Y departures so I restricted cessna 206 altitude to at or below 045. Normally most jet departures are at or above 050 at the crossing point. B737 departed on a SID X departure and was climbing slower than normal. I quoted traffic to cessna 206; who responded 'traffic in sight; we can maintain visual.' I responded that 'visual separation is approved.' I then quoted the traffic to the B737 who said he was 'looking.' next the B737 said he was responding to an RA. He then said he had the traffic in sight and something to the effect of 'that's close.' later the B737 again asked what that aircraft was doing and I advised him that he had reported him in sight and was maintaining visual separation. He did not seem happy. The thing that made this situation difficult are numerous. 1-The SID X departure aircraft are in a climbing turn and the range of turn rates is completely variable. It is very difficult to issue a turn to avoid traffic for fear of making it worse. In this case; in my judgment; the best course of action was to do nothing; which would cause the B737 to go behind the cessna 206. 2-The MVA in the area of the incident was 039; precluding me from stopping the B737 at an altitude below the cessna 206. 3-The B737 climbed (and all departures vary) much slower than the normal expected climb rate of the B737 on the SID X. While this caught me a little off guard; due to reasons 1 and 2 above; my options were limited. I also didn't want to impose a turn on the cessna 206; since I had already instructed them to maintain visual separation; and I didn't want to counter a move they may have been executing; thereby making the situation worse. The SID X and SID Y departures used to have a note to 'remain within 4 NM of the airport' during the turnout. I have heard that this was removed due to noise complaints. Whatever the reason; this removal has led to a very unpredictable climb out path. If this cannot be resolved; then we should be more restrictive with approvals of photo missions in departure corridors.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller described a conflict event between an Air Carrier departure and a photo mission aircraft that was maintaining visual separation; the reporter detailing the event with the options available.

Narrative: Cessna 206 was on a pre-coordinated photo mission on a VFR flight plan. His flight track was north/south northeast and southeast of the Airport. I knew this route had the potential to conflict with the SID X; or SID Y departures so I restricted Cessna 206 altitude to at or below 045. Normally most jet departures are at or above 050 at the crossing point. B737 departed on a SID X departure and was climbing slower than normal. I quoted traffic to Cessna 206; who responded 'Traffic in sight; we can maintain visual.' I responded that 'Visual separation is approved.' I then quoted the traffic to the B737 who said he was 'Looking.' Next the B737 said he was responding to an RA. He then said he had the traffic in sight and something to the effect of 'that's close.' Later the B737 again asked what that aircraft was doing and I advised him that he had reported him in sight and was maintaining visual separation. He did not seem happy. The thing that made this situation difficult are numerous. 1-The SID X Departure aircraft are in a climbing turn and the range of turn rates is completely variable. It is very difficult to issue a turn to avoid traffic for fear of making it worse. In this case; in my judgment; the best course of action was to do nothing; which would cause the B737 to go behind the Cessna 206. 2-The MVA in the area of the incident was 039; precluding me from stopping the B737 at an altitude below the Cessna 206. 3-The B737 climbed (and all departures vary) much slower than the normal expected climb rate of the B737 on the SID X. While this caught me a little off guard; due to reasons 1 and 2 above; my options were limited. I also didn't want to impose a turn on the Cessna 206; since I had already instructed them to maintain visual separation; and I didn't want to counter a move they may have been executing; thereby making the situation worse. The SID X and SID Y departures used to have a note to 'remain within 4 NM of the Airport' during the turnout. I have heard that this was removed due to noise complaints. Whatever the reason; this removal has led to a very unpredictable climb out path. If this cannot be resolved; then we should be more restrictive with approvals of photo missions in departure corridors.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.

Attributes
ACN	1110275
Time
Date	201308
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B737-700
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	Cruise
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Function	Approach Departure
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Person 2
Function	First Officer
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 51
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict

TRACON controller described a conflict event between an air carrier departure and a photo mission aircraft that was maintaining visual separation; the reporter detailing the event with the options available.