Narrative:

After takeoff on runway 26R, tower advised us of traffic at 9:30 departing parallel to us on runway 26R. This traffic was located and idented immediately. At approximately 500 ft AGL, tower told us traffic would turn right to depart northwest, and for our flight to turn left to 240 degree. By this time we were only 600-700 AGL at 1/2 plus 10 KTS and the traffic had made his turn and was coming directly into our flight path. We told tower we would not turn left and in addition would stop our climb so as to avoid the encroaching traffic. The traffic passed approximately 500 ft ahead and 100 ft above as he crossed the centerline of our departure path. After traffic safely passed off our right, did we begin our climb again and turned to the requested 240 degree heading. At this point, only about 1 mi off the departure runway, tower turned us over to departure control, with no mention of any conflict. We advised tower this was very close and then changed over. I personally feel the local controllers should not have departed 2 similar performing aircraft next to one another and certainly should not have instructed each to cross the others flight path and on different frequencys! Only our quick stop of climb and refusal to turn averted a certain collision. Supplemental information from acn 190787. Since the other traffic was on another tower frequency, we do not know the reason the other aircraft turned into our path. We also don't know whether he was VFR or IFR. Perhaps a solution to this type of problem would be better communication between the 2 tower frequencys, and more spacing between aircraft of similar performance taking off from parallel runways.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 COMMUTERS TAKING OFF ON PARALLEL RWYS ARE VECTORED INTO AN NMAC.

Narrative: AFTER TKOF ON RWY 26R, TWR ADVISED US OF TFC AT 9:30 DEPARTING PARALLEL TO US ON RWY 26R. THIS TFC WAS LOCATED AND IDENTED IMMEDIATELY. AT APPROX 500 FT AGL, TWR TOLD US TFC WOULD TURN R TO DEPART NW, AND FOR OUR FLT TO TURN L TO 240 DEG. BY THIS TIME WE WERE ONLY 600-700 AGL AT 1/2 PLUS 10 KTS AND THE TFC HAD MADE HIS TURN AND WAS COMING DIRECTLY INTO OUR FLT PATH. WE TOLD TWR WE WOULD NOT TURN L AND IN ADDITION WOULD STOP OUR CLB SO AS TO AVOID THE ENCROACHING TFC. THE TFC PASSED APPROX 500 FT AHEAD AND 100 FT ABOVE AS HE CROSSED THE CENTERLINE OF OUR DEP PATH. AFTER TFC SAFELY PASSED OFF OUR R, DID WE BEGIN OUR CLB AGAIN AND TURNED TO THE REQUESTED 240 DEG HDG. AT THIS POINT, ONLY ABOUT 1 MI OFF THE DEP RWY, TWR TURNED US OVER TO DEP CTL, WITH NO MENTION OF ANY CONFLICT. WE ADVISED TWR THIS WAS VERY CLOSE AND THEN CHANGED OVER. I PERSONALLY FEEL THE LCL CTLRS SHOULD NOT HAVE DEPARTED 2 SIMILAR PERFORMING ACFT NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER AND CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT HAVE INSTRUCTED EACH TO CROSS THE OTHERS FLT PATH AND ON DIFFERENT FREQS! ONLY OUR QUICK STOP OF CLB AND REFUSAL TO TURN AVERTED A CERTAIN COLLISION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 190787. SINCE THE OTHER TFC WAS ON ANOTHER TWR FREQ, WE DO NOT KNOW THE REASON THE OTHER ACFT TURNED INTO OUR PATH. WE ALSO DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE WAS VFR OR IFR. PERHAPS A SOLUTION TO THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM WOULD BE BETTER COM BTWN THE 2 TWR FREQS, AND MORE SPACING BTWN ACFT OF SIMILAR PERFORMANCE TAKING OFF FROM PARALLEL RWYS.

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.