Narrative:

I was the first officer on flight air carrier X scheduled service from st louis to oklahoma city. At PM33 CST we took off from lambert field on runway 30L with a clearance to 5000 ft and heading of 305 degrees. The captain was flying the aircraft. At 1000 ft AGL I selected flaps 1 and set climb thrust at the captain's direction. Shortly after this (at an estimated altitude of 1300-1500 ft AGL and on the assigned 305 degree heading) we got a TCASII warning, the ivsi display was red and the TCASII voice began commanding 'reduce climb.' the captain started to level the aircraft as we both looked for the conflicting traffic. I leaned closer to the right window to clear the other departure (runway 30R) and saw an MD80 about 100 ft below and climbing into us from right to left. His left wing was already moving under our aircraft. I said something like 'keep climbing, I have him in sight do you want me to take it.' we transferred control and I pulled the aircraft up to get vertical separation and then turned right away from the MD80's flight path (he was now passing under us). We reported the incident to tower and asked for instructions. We were given a heading of 060 degrees, then 090 degrees and told to level at 3000 ft MSL. The MD80 started a turn back into us and the captain took the aircraft and continued a turn to the right. We were vectored back around on course at 3000 ft. The rest of the flight was uneventful. We received no explanation for the conflict from tower although I have since been told the MD80 was given runway heading for takeoff and tower forgot to give them an assigned heading of 340 degrees after takeoff. Contributing factors: aircraft on 2 parallel runways are simultaneously given takeoff clearance on separate frequencys without being told of the potential conflict. Combined with no published separation procedure (i.e., diverging turns from the 2 runways) it makes the chain of events leading to this incident relatively short and easy to occur. Recommended corrective action: stagger takeoffs and insure the second aircraft has the first in sight prior to clearance. Establish published turns for the parallel runways that ensure positive aircraft separation on takeoff and departure in case the tower fails to assign a heading.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DEPARTING ACR HAS NMAC WITH ANOTHER DEPARTING ACR OFF PARALLEL RWY.

Narrative: I WAS THE FO ON FLT ACR X SCHEDULED SVC FROM ST LOUIS TO OKLAHOMA CITY. AT PM33 CST WE TOOK OFF FROM LAMBERT FIELD ON RWY 30L WITH A CLRNC TO 5000 FT AND HDG OF 305 DEGS. THE CAPT WAS FLYING THE ACFT. AT 1000 FT AGL I SELECTED FLAPS 1 AND SET CLB THRUST AT THE CAPT'S DIRECTION. SHORTLY AFTER THIS (AT AN ESTIMATED ALT OF 1300-1500 FT AGL AND ON THE ASSIGNED 305 DEG HDG) WE GOT A TCASII WARNING, THE IVSI DISPLAY WAS RED AND THE TCASII VOICE BEGAN COMMANDING 'REDUCE CLB.' THE CAPT STARTED TO LEVEL THE ACFT AS WE BOTH LOOKED FOR THE CONFLICTING TFC. I LEANED CLOSER TO THE R WINDOW TO CLR THE OTHER DEP (RWY 30R) AND SAW AN MD80 ABOUT 100 FT BELOW AND CLBING INTO US FROM R TO L. HIS LEFT WING WAS ALREADY MOVING UNDER OUR ACFT. I SAID SOMETHING LIKE 'KEEP CLBING, I HAVE HIM IN SIGHT DO YOU WANT ME TO TAKE IT.' WE TRANSFERRED CTL AND I PULLED THE ACFT UP TO GET VERT SEPARATION AND THEN TURNED RIGHT AWAY FROM THE MD80'S FLT PATH (HE WAS NOW PASSING UNDER US). WE RPTED THE INCIDENT TO TWR AND ASKED FOR INSTRUCTIONS. WE WERE GIVEN A HDG OF 060 DEGS, THEN 090 DEGS AND TOLD TO LEVEL AT 3000 FT MSL. THE MD80 STARTED A TURN BACK INTO US AND THE CAPT TOOK THE ACFT AND CONTINUED A TURN TO THE R. WE WERE VECTORED BACK AROUND ON COURSE AT 3000 FT. THE REST OF THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. WE RECEIVED NO EXPLANATION FOR THE CONFLICT FROM TWR ALTHOUGH I HAVE SINCE BEEN TOLD THE MD80 WAS GIVEN RWY HDG FOR TKOF AND TWR FORGOT TO GIVE THEM AN ASSIGNED HDG OF 340 DEGS AFTER TKOF. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: ACFT ON 2 PARALLEL RWYS ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY GIVEN TKOF CLRNC ON SEPARATE FREQS WITHOUT BEING TOLD OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT. COMBINED WITH NO PUBLISHED SEPARATION PROC (I.E., DIVERGING TURNS FROM THE 2 RWYS) IT MAKES THE CHAIN OF EVENTS LEADING TO THIS INCIDENT RELATIVELY SHORT AND EASY TO OCCUR. RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION: STAGGER TKOFS AND INSURE THE SECOND ACFT HAS THE FIRST IN SIGHT PRIOR TO CLRNC. ESTABLISH PUBLISHED TURNS FOR THE PARALLEL RWYS THAT ENSURE POSITIVE ACFT SEPARATION ON TKOF AND DEP IN CASE THE TWR FAILS TO ASSIGN A HDG.

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.