Narrative:

Crew taxied to runway 8R after having requested a runway 8L intersection departure (runway 8L was partially closed due to construction). Ground control instructed crew to use 8R. Approaching 8R tower instructed crew to 'taxi into position and hold.' after holding in position we were told a helicopter was operating north of 8R and we were cleared for takeoff. We idented the traffic, checked the departure area and commenced the takeoff. The takeoff was normal, however just after lift-off a different voice said, 'traffic 2 O'clock high.' looking out the first officer's windshield I saw a small twin at about our 2-2:30 position, approximately 300-500' above us on about a perpendicular course. I lowered the nose slightly, but I don't think either aircraft took evasive action. I believe he flew over our tail or behind us. He appeared to be on a base to runways 4 (extended centerlines would make the runways [4 and 8] intersect). Apparently the other aircraft made a comment about our proximity and the flight continued on our designated routing west/O further event. I don't think we would have been able to see the traffic prior to lift-off. With its altitude and the direction he was coming from I believe the fuselage would have blocked our view. By the same token, I'm not sure the other aircraft could see us because of his angle of attack and the direction he was approaching us. If the different voice (the controller was a woman, the traffic advisory was from a man) had not called the traffic I don't think we'd have known there was a conflict. I think the tower may have been training a new controller. However, not to put all the blame on the controllers, with the runway closure they've had to handle a lot more traffic on fewer runways. Since the vast majority of our operations are visibility, due to the WX, runway 8R is overflown at midfield quite a bit by aircraft flying 4R or 4L. If aircraft were instructed to fly their base leg over the approach end of 8R when landing on runway 4 a lot of this problem would take care of itself. When operating at airports with runways arranged so that overflt of one runway is required to get to the landing runway, crews need to expand their departure area check to include not only the departure end, but also those areas where arriving traffic may be coming from!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF ACR MLG DEPARTING HNL IS ALERTED TO TRAFFIC 300-500' ABOVE THEM JUST AFTER BECOMING AIRBORNE.

Narrative: CREW TAXIED TO RWY 8R AFTER HAVING REQUESTED A RWY 8L INTXN DEP (RWY 8L WAS PARTIALLY CLOSED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION). GND CTL INSTRUCTED CREW TO USE 8R. APCHING 8R TWR INSTRUCTED CREW TO 'TAXI INTO POS AND HOLD.' AFTER HOLDING IN POS WE WERE TOLD A HELI WAS OPERATING N OF 8R AND WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF. WE IDENTED THE TFC, CHKED THE DEP AREA AND COMMENCED THE TKOF. THE TKOF WAS NORMAL, HOWEVER JUST AFTER LIFT-OFF A DIFFERENT VOICE SAID, 'TFC 2 O'CLOCK HIGH.' LOOKING OUT THE F/O'S WINDSHIELD I SAW A SMALL TWIN AT ABOUT OUR 2-2:30 POS, APPROX 300-500' ABOVE US ON ABOUT A PERPENDICULAR COURSE. I LOWERED THE NOSE SLIGHTLY, BUT I DON'T THINK EITHER ACFT TOOK EVASIVE ACTION. I BELIEVE HE FLEW OVER OUR TAIL OR BEHIND US. HE APPEARED TO BE ON A BASE TO RWYS 4 (EXTENDED CENTERLINES WOULD MAKE THE RWYS [4 AND 8] INTERSECT). APPARENTLY THE OTHER ACFT MADE A COMMENT ABOUT OUR PROX AND THE FLT CONTINUED ON OUR DESIGNATED ROUTING W/O FURTHER EVENT. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE TFC PRIOR TO LIFT-OFF. WITH ITS ALT AND THE DIRECTION HE WAS COMING FROM I BELIEVE THE FUSELAGE WOULD HAVE BLOCKED OUR VIEW. BY THE SAME TOKEN, I'M NOT SURE THE OTHER ACFT COULD SEE US BECAUSE OF HIS ANGLE OF ATTACK AND THE DIRECTION HE WAS APCHING US. IF THE DIFFERENT VOICE (THE CTLR WAS A WOMAN, THE TFC ADVISORY WAS FROM A MAN) HAD NOT CALLED THE TFC I DON'T THINK WE'D HAVE KNOWN THERE WAS A CONFLICT. I THINK THE TWR MAY HAVE BEEN TRNING A NEW CTLR. HOWEVER, NOT TO PUT ALL THE BLAME ON THE CTLRS, WITH THE RWY CLOSURE THEY'VE HAD TO HANDLE A LOT MORE TFC ON FEWER RWYS. SINCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR OPS ARE VIS, DUE TO THE WX, RWY 8R IS OVERFLOWN AT MIDFIELD QUITE A BIT BY ACFT FLYING 4R OR 4L. IF ACFT WERE INSTRUCTED TO FLY THEIR BASE LEG OVER THE APCH END OF 8R WHEN LNDG ON RWY 4 A LOT OF THIS PROB WOULD TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. WHEN OPERATING AT ARPTS WITH RWYS ARRANGED SO THAT OVERFLT OF ONE RWY IS REQUIRED TO GET TO THE LNDG RWY, CREWS NEED TO EXPAND THEIR DEP AREA CHK TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE DEP END, BUT ALSO THOSE AREAS WHERE ARRIVING TFC MAY BE COMING FROM!

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