Narrative:

Msp tower put A320 in position and hold with light twin on takeoff roll and our aircraft inside 3 mi. A320 started takeoff roll immediately when cleared, but it was too late (our aircraft at approximately 500 ft) and tower said 'go around' to us with no further instructions. Tower frequency was busy, and heading/altitude instructions (if issued) were blocked. We maintained runway heading initially and began climb to 4000 ft (ILS missed approach altitude). When we got a word in edgewise and asked for heading/altitude, tower said we 'could' maintain 3000 ft (we were passing 3400 ft) and asked if we could turn to a 240 degree heading (we could). Although we saw the go around coming early, the tower controller seemed unprepared, and confusion reigned. Although I understand the need to get departures out in between arrs, perhaps in a situation where a go around is a distinct possibility, contingent go around instructions should be issued to the aircraft on the visual approach -- just in case. Although we never got any TCASII advisories, it appeared (and sounded like) separation between us and the departing A320 was rapidly becoming an issue. A pre-assigned heading for us (in the event of a go around) would have solved the problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATCT LCL CTLR CLRED AN A320 FOR TKOF WHILE A B757 WAS ON SHORT FINAL. THE TWR CTLR TOLD THE B757 TO GAR, BUT DID NOT ASSIGN A HDG OR ALT. FREQ WAS CONGESTED AND THE CTLR FINALLY GAVE A HDG AND ALT ASSIGNMENT AND RPTR THINKS THAT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SOONER OR PRE ASSIGNED WHEN A GAR MIGHT BE IMMINENT.

Narrative: MSP TWR PUT A320 IN POS AND HOLD WITH LIGHT TWIN ON TKOF ROLL AND OUR ACFT INSIDE 3 MI. A320 STARTED TKOF ROLL IMMEDIATELY WHEN CLRED, BUT IT WAS TOO LATE (OUR ACFT AT APPROX 500 FT) AND TWR SAID 'GAR' TO US WITH NO FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. TWR FREQ WAS BUSY, AND HDG/ALT INSTRUCTIONS (IF ISSUED) WERE BLOCKED. WE MAINTAINED RWY HDG INITIALLY AND BEGAN CLB TO 4000 FT (ILS MISSED APCH ALT). WHEN WE GOT A WORD IN EDGEWISE AND ASKED FOR HDG/ALT, TWR SAID WE 'COULD' MAINTAIN 3000 FT (WE WERE PASSING 3400 FT) AND ASKED IF WE COULD TURN TO A 240 DEG HDG (WE COULD). ALTHOUGH WE SAW THE GAR COMING EARLY, THE TWR CTLR SEEMED UNPREPARED, AND CONFUSION REIGNED. ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO GET DEPS OUT IN BTWN ARRS, PERHAPS IN A SIT WHERE A GAR IS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY, CONTINGENT GAR INSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE ISSUED TO THE ACFT ON THE VISUAL APCH -- JUST IN CASE. ALTHOUGH WE NEVER GOT ANY TCASII ADVISORIES, IT APPEARED (AND SOUNDED LIKE) SEPARATION BTWN US AND THE DEPARTING A320 WAS RAPIDLY BECOMING AN ISSUE. A PRE-ASSIGNED HDG FOR US (IN THE EVENT OF A GAR) WOULD HAVE SOLVED THE PROB.

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.