Narrative:

While on the gorman departure from lax to oak we were cleared to maintain 9000 ft after which we were turned northeast and handed off to burbank departure control to traverse their airspace and cross under the lax arrs from the west that proceed along the coast in an easterly direction toward santa monica VOR. While in burbank's airspace, and presumably after we were clear of the lax arrs, we were given clearance to climb from our previous 9000 ft restriction. Very shortly thereafter we were given an advisory of VFR traffic coming from our left, his altitude was noted as 10500 ft. At about that time we got a TCASII TA message followed almost immediately by an RA to descend. That first target would have been at about 10500 ft based on our altitude and the altitude separation noted on the TCASII. We followed the RA and descended to about 9800 ft at which time the traffic passed overhead and moved away. We notified burbank of the RA and were commencing our climb again when another VFR advisory was issued for a commuter type aircraft also crossing from left to right and also at 10500 ft. Once again we had a TA followed by an RA which we followed and descended back to about 9800 ft. These 2 incidents occurred in less than 2 mins. In both cases the VFR traffic apparently made no attempt to avoid our aircraft since their altitude remained unchanged as they proceeded over our aircraft. It was clear and nearly pitch black, we had our inboard landing lights, wing illumination lights, navigation lights, wing tip strobe lights and anti-collision strobe lights all on, yet neither VFR aircraft apparently saw us, since their altitude remained unchanged as we saw it on the TCASII. The see and be seen concept of visual flight rules does not appear to have been followed during these 2 incidents. In my opinion, holding gorman departures at 9000 ft and turning across the coastline to await clearance from burbank is a very poor procedure. With a typical jet departure, the inbound crossing lanes could be sufficiently cleared if we were allowed to continue our climb to a higher level before crossing the coastline to join the gorman departure. These 2 incidents were only the most recent, and happily the only 2 such very close calls, of a number of encounters with VFR traffic while traversing the burbank airspace. It is to be expected therefore that there will be more conflicts between VFR and IFR traffic. See and be seen is somewhat idealistic, I would much prefer to be permitted a climb above the all too frequent light airplane traffic in the greater lax area. Neither of the VFR aircraft had more than navigation and anti- collision lights on, landing lights would have made them much more visible.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR HAS CLOSE PROX WITH 2 VFR ACFT ON CLBOUT. TCASII RA.

Narrative: WHILE ON THE GORMAN DEP FROM LAX TO OAK WE WERE CLRED TO MAINTAIN 9000 FT AFTER WHICH WE WERE TURNED NE AND HANDED OFF TO BURBANK DEP CTL TO TRAVERSE THEIR AIRSPACE AND CROSS UNDER THE LAX ARRS FROM THE W THAT PROCEED ALONG THE COAST IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TOWARD SANTA MONICA VOR. WHILE IN BURBANK'S AIRSPACE, AND PRESUMABLY AFTER WE WERE CLR OF THE LAX ARRS, WE WERE GIVEN CLRNC TO CLB FROM OUR PREVIOUS 9000 FT RESTRICTION. VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER WE WERE GIVEN AN ADVISORY OF VFR TFC COMING FROM OUR L, HIS ALT WAS NOTED AS 10500 FT. AT ABOUT THAT TIME WE GOT A TCASII TA MESSAGE FOLLOWED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY BY AN RA TO DSND. THAT FIRST TARGET WOULD HAVE BEEN AT ABOUT 10500 FT BASED ON OUR ALT AND THE ALT SEPARATION NOTED ON THE TCASII. WE FOLLOWED THE RA AND DSNDED TO ABOUT 9800 FT AT WHICH TIME THE TFC PASSED OVERHEAD AND MOVED AWAY. WE NOTIFIED BURBANK OF THE RA AND WERE COMMENCING OUR CLB AGAIN WHEN ANOTHER VFR ADVISORY WAS ISSUED FOR A COMMUTER TYPE ACFT ALSO XING FROM L TO R AND ALSO AT 10500 FT. ONCE AGAIN WE HAD A TA FOLLOWED BY AN RA WHICH WE FOLLOWED AND DSNDED BACK TO ABOUT 9800 FT. THESE 2 INCIDENTS OCCURRED IN LESS THAN 2 MINS. IN BOTH CASES THE VFR TFC APPARENTLY MADE NO ATTEMPT TO AVOID OUR ACFT SINCE THEIR ALT REMAINED UNCHANGED AS THEY PROCEEDED OVER OUR ACFT. IT WAS CLR AND NEARLY PITCH BLACK, WE HAD OUR INBOARD LNDG LIGHTS, WING ILLUMINATION LIGHTS, NAV LIGHTS, WING TIP STROBE LIGHTS AND ANTI-COLLISION STROBE LIGHTS ALL ON, YET NEITHER VFR ACFT APPARENTLY SAW US, SINCE THEIR ALT REMAINED UNCHANGED AS WE SAW IT ON THE TCASII. THE SEE AND BE SEEN CONCEPT OF VISUAL FLT RULES DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED DURING THESE 2 INCIDENTS. IN MY OPINION, HOLDING GORMAN DEPS AT 9000 FT AND TURNING ACROSS THE COASTLINE TO AWAIT CLRNC FROM BURBANK IS A VERY POOR PROC. WITH A TYPICAL JET DEP, THE INBOUND XING LANES COULD BE SUFFICIENTLY CLRED IF WE WERE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OUR CLB TO A HIGHER LEVEL BEFORE XING THE COASTLINE TO JOIN THE GORMAN DEP. THESE 2 INCIDENTS WERE ONLY THE MOST RECENT, AND HAPPILY THE ONLY 2 SUCH VERY CLOSE CALLS, OF A NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS WITH VFR TFC WHILE TRAVERSING THE BURBANK AIRSPACE. IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THEREFORE THAT THERE WILL BE MORE CONFLICTS BTWN VFR AND IFR TFC. SEE AND BE SEEN IS SOMEWHAT IDEALISTIC, I WOULD MUCH PREFER TO BE PERMITTED A CLB ABOVE THE ALL TOO FREQUENT LIGHT AIRPLANE TFC IN THE GREATER LAX AREA. NEITHER OF THE VFR ACFT HAD MORE THAN NAV AND ANTI- COLLISION LIGHTS ON, LNDG LIGHTS WOULD HAVE MADE THEM MUCH MORE VISIBLE.

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.