Narrative:

Backgnd: as I remember, ATIS was calling ceilings 900 ft broken, visibility 8 mi in mist, ILS in use at lax. 2 aircraft ahead of us. Air carrier #1 asked several times for a visual and was given the visual approach to runway 24R. Subsequent aircraft were vectored for and given the visual approach to runway 24R, including ourselves. We ended up doing a missed approach, caused by an unstabilized approach due to our effort to avoid clouds on final. Our missed approach began at less than 500 ft AGL and instructions issued by the tower were 'fly heading 250 degrees, maintain 2000 ft...' as TCASII enabled on climb out, we got an RA. The captain followed the RA guidance, reaching an altitude of approximately 2400 ft before receiving the 'clear of conflict.' the aircraft causing the RA was an air carrier #2 jet that had been cleared to take off runway 24L. We both broke out of the clouds at approximately 1500 ft MSL, near the coastline. The air carrier #2 began a turn to the left as we saw each other. What concerned us, besides the fact that our clearance put us so close to an aircraft taking off that we received an RA, was lax tower's nonchalant attitude. We both remember hearing a 'traffic not a factor call.' 1) how can tower assure clearance when both aircraft are IMC? 2) lax procedures are for departing aircraft not to turn until the coastline, and to maintain either 2000 ft or 3000 ft. If missed approach instructions are straight ahead to 2000 ft, this leaves only the distance between the runways for aircraft separation. It is not uncommon for a marine layer of clouds to obscure the departure end while the arrival end is clear. Hence, we could both see this same scenario happening again, with no visual separation between aircraft that are assigned essentially the same airspace.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 FLC ISSUED VISUAL APCH BUT UNABLE TO REMAIN CLR OF CLOUDS. MISSED APCH EXECUTED AND TWR CLRS TO CLB HDG 250 DEGS AND MAINTAIN 2000 FT. TCASII ACTIVATES DUE TO ACFT DEPARTING ON RWY 24L. BOTH ACFT IN CLOUDS BUT CTLR SAYS 'TFC NOT A FACTOR.'

Narrative: BACKGND: AS I REMEMBER, ATIS WAS CALLING CEILINGS 900 FT BROKEN, VISIBILITY 8 MI IN MIST, ILS IN USE AT LAX. 2 ACFT AHEAD OF US. ACR #1 ASKED SEVERAL TIMES FOR A VISUAL AND WAS GIVEN THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 24R. SUBSEQUENT ACFT WERE VECTORED FOR AND GIVEN THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 24R, INCLUDING OURSELVES. WE ENDED UP DOING A MISSED APCH, CAUSED BY AN UNSTABILIZED APCH DUE TO OUR EFFORT TO AVOID CLOUDS ON FINAL. OUR MISSED APCH BEGAN AT LESS THAN 500 FT AGL AND INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE TWR WERE 'FLY HDG 250 DEGS, MAINTAIN 2000 FT...' AS TCASII ENABLED ON CLBOUT, WE GOT AN RA. THE CAPT FOLLOWED THE RA GUIDANCE, REACHING AN ALT OF APPROX 2400 FT BEFORE RECEIVING THE 'CLR OF CONFLICT.' THE ACFT CAUSING THE RA WAS AN ACR #2 JET THAT HAD BEEN CLRED TO TAKE OFF RWY 24L. WE BOTH BROKE OUT OF THE CLOUDS AT APPROX 1500 FT MSL, NEAR THE COASTLINE. THE ACR #2 BEGAN A TURN TO THE L AS WE SAW EACH OTHER. WHAT CONCERNED US, BESIDES THE FACT THAT OUR CLRNC PUT US SO CLOSE TO AN ACFT TAKING OFF THAT WE RECEIVED AN RA, WAS LAX TWR'S NONCHALANT ATTITUDE. WE BOTH REMEMBER HEARING A 'TFC NOT A FACTOR CALL.' 1) HOW CAN TWR ASSURE CLRNC WHEN BOTH ACFT ARE IMC? 2) LAX PROCS ARE FOR DEPARTING ACFT NOT TO TURN UNTIL THE COASTLINE, AND TO MAINTAIN EITHER 2000 FT OR 3000 FT. IF MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS ARE STRAIGHT AHEAD TO 2000 FT, THIS LEAVES ONLY THE DISTANCE BTWN THE RWYS FOR ACFT SEPARATION. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR A MARINE LAYER OF CLOUDS TO OBSCURE THE DEP END WHILE THE ARR END IS CLR. HENCE, WE COULD BOTH SEE THIS SAME SCENARIO HAPPENING AGAIN, WITH NO VISUAL SEPARATION BTWN ACFT THAT ARE ASSIGNED ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AIRSPACE.

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.