Narrative:

Student pilot in piper cherokee is issued a left turn to 140 degree heading after departure by clearance delivery. Runways 30R (used for light aircraft) and 30L (used for commercial jets) were on split tower frequencys. The student pilot departed ahead of us with no other departure instructions -- though the local controller was supposed to issue other instructions to avoid traffic conflict (according to tower supervisor). He was not advised of our departure on the closely spaced parallel runway either. We (an airbus A-320) departed with the cherokee in sight. As we were approaching his altitude, the cherokee pilot began his left turn - - directly in our flight path. The first officer (PF) pulled up and turned right to avoid the cherokee. We passed directly over him. Traffic was called to us only moments prior to passing over him. Both pilots were following ATC instructions. Clearance delivery issued instructions that would put the aircraft in the departure path of the parallel runway. The local controller is charged with issuing instructions to avoid this conflict, but due to human error on the controller's part, those instructions were not issued. The cause of the incident was the local controller's failure to issue appropriate departure instructions to the student cherokee pilot. Equally at fault is the issuing of departure instructions by clearance delivery that required un-doing. In a post incident phone call to tower supervisor, he informed me that they were considering changing the clearance delivery instructions to 'fly runway heading.' had this been the policy on the day of the incident, the cherokee would not have turned into our flight path.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC WITH A320 AND CHEROKEE ON TKOF.

Narrative: STUDENT PLT IN PIPER CHEROKEE IS ISSUED A L TURN TO 140 DEG HDG AFTER DEP BY CLRNC DELIVERY. RWYS 30R (USED FOR LIGHT ACFT) AND 30L (USED FOR COMMERCIAL JETS) WERE ON SPLIT TWR FREQS. THE STUDENT PLT DEPARTED AHEAD OF US WITH NO OTHER DEP INSTRUCTIONS -- THOUGH THE LCL CTLR WAS SUPPOSED TO ISSUE OTHER INSTRUCTIONS TO AVOID TFC CONFLICT (ACCORDING TO TWR SUPVR). HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF OUR DEP ON THE CLOSELY SPACED PARALLEL RWY EITHER. WE (AN AIRBUS A-320) DEPARTED WITH THE CHEROKEE IN SIGHT. AS WE WERE APCHING HIS ALT, THE CHEROKEE PLT BEGAN HIS L TURN - - DIRECTLY IN OUR FLT PATH. THE FO (PF) PULLED UP AND TURNED R TO AVOID THE CHEROKEE. WE PASSED DIRECTLY OVER HIM. TFC WAS CALLED TO US ONLY MOMENTS PRIOR TO PASSING OVER HIM. BOTH PLTS WERE FOLLOWING ATC INSTRUCTIONS. CLRNC DELIVERY ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS THAT WOULD PUT THE ACFT IN THE DEP PATH OF THE PARALLEL RWY. THE LCL CTLR IS CHARGED WITH ISSUING INSTRUCTIONS TO AVOID THIS CONFLICT, BUT DUE TO HUMAN ERROR ON THE CTLR'S PART, THOSE INSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT ISSUED. THE CAUSE OF THE INCIDENT WAS THE LCL CTLR'S FAILURE TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE DEP INSTRUCTIONS TO THE STUDENT CHEROKEE PLT. EQUALLY AT FAULT IS THE ISSUING OF DEP INSTRUCTIONS BY CLRNC DELIVERY THAT REQUIRED UN-DOING. IN A POST INCIDENT PHONE CALL TO TWR SUPVR, HE INFORMED ME THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERING CHANGING THE CLRNC DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS TO 'FLY RWY HDG.' HAD THIS BEEN THE POLICY ON THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT, THE CHEROKEE WOULD NOT HAVE TURNED INTO OUR FLT PATH.

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.