Narrative:

I was working local control and cabin attendant coordinator. Moderate IFR traffic conditions and crossing runway configns, runway 27 and runway 20L were active. I requested a departure release for 5 aircraft. I requested that cga X on runway 20L be released on a 340 degree heading. This was approved and a release was obtained for small transport Y (runway 27) to fly runway heading. Cga X was taxied into position to hold and told traffic departing 27. Small transport Y was departed and switched over the departure end to atlanta approach. Then cga X was issued a departure clearance and was switched to departure control. At XA04:54 atl stopped all departures off pdk. At XA05:40 pdk was asked if cga X had small transport Y in sight. I replied affirmative because I didn't hear the entire question and I was looking out the window at other traffic. I did, however, see small transport Y and cga X clearly, both on the BRITE and out the window. Atl then informed pdk that cga X stated if traffic hadn't been issued, he would have hit small transport Y. I was asked if cga X was instructed to maintain visual with small transport Y. I replied negative, he wasn't instructed to do so. Both aircraft were 6-7 mi west when I last observed them visually. I believe contributing factors were 1ST strong headwinds 270 at 20 KTS prevented small transport Y from flying at a quicker rate, which in turn, placed him in the direct flight path of cga X. I didn't consider headwind when cga X was cleared. I attempted to resolve runway conflicts 1ST and failed to ascertain airborne IFR separation. Both aircraft were switched in sufficient time to allow approach to resolve conflicts. Better adherence to all factors on both sides could have prevented this.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CGA CAME IN CLOSE PROX TO AN SMT AFTER DEP.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING LCL CTL AND CAB COORDINATOR. MODERATE IFR TFC CONDITIONS AND XING RWY CONFIGNS, RWY 27 AND RWY 20L WERE ACTIVE. I REQUESTED A DEP RELEASE FOR 5 ACFT. I REQUESTED THAT CGA X ON RWY 20L BE RELEASED ON A 340 DEG HDG. THIS WAS APPROVED AND A RELEASE WAS OBTAINED FOR SMT Y (RWY 27) TO FLY RWY HDG. CGA X WAS TAXIED INTO POSITION TO HOLD AND TOLD TFC DEPARTING 27. SMT Y WAS DEPARTED AND SWITCHED OVER THE DEP END TO ATLANTA APCH. THEN CGA X WAS ISSUED A DEP CLRNC AND WAS SWITCHED TO DEP CTL. AT XA04:54 ATL STOPPED ALL DEPS OFF PDK. AT XA05:40 PDK WAS ASKED IF CGA X HAD SMT Y IN SIGHT. I REPLIED AFFIRMATIVE BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR THE ENTIRE QUESTION AND I WAS LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW AT OTHER TFC. I DID, HOWEVER, SEE SMT Y AND CGA X CLEARLY, BOTH ON THE BRITE AND OUT THE WINDOW. ATL THEN INFORMED PDK THAT CGA X STATED IF TFC HADN'T BEEN ISSUED, HE WOULD HAVE HIT SMT Y. I WAS ASKED IF CGA X WAS INSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL WITH SMT Y. I REPLIED NEGATIVE, HE WASN'T INSTRUCTED TO DO SO. BOTH ACFT WERE 6-7 MI W WHEN I LAST OBSERVED THEM VISUALLY. I BELIEVE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE 1ST STRONG HEADWINDS 270 AT 20 KTS PREVENTED SMT Y FROM FLYING AT A QUICKER RATE, WHICH IN TURN, PLACED HIM IN THE DIRECT FLT PATH OF CGA X. I DIDN'T CONSIDER HEADWIND WHEN CGA X WAS CLRED. I ATTEMPTED TO RESOLVE RWY CONFLICTS 1ST AND FAILED TO ASCERTAIN AIRBORNE IFR SEPARATION. BOTH ACFT WERE SWITCHED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO ALLOW APCH TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS. BETTER ADHERENCE TO ALL FACTORS ON BOTH SIDES COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.