Narrative:

When cleared for takeoff by burbank tower runway 15 on van nuys 7 SID, we were advised there were 2 aircraft southwest of airport, fixed wing at 2500 ft and helicopter at 1500 ft. After takeoff and on 210 degree heading, 1500 ft, target appeared to be right of our course and no factor. 2500 ft target (TCASII) appeared directly ahead. (Tower advised us before takeoff that the 2500 ft aircraft had us in sight.) at approximately 1500 ft an RA directed us to decrease rate of climb, which we followed, leveling at approximately 2000 ft, 230 KTS. Just at start of RA we visually contacted 2500 ft aircraft, straight ahead, appearing to be right in our path if we continued to climb. That aircraft also started to climb to avoid us. I believe that without the TCASII, there would have been a large chance of a midair collision. Have had many cases of controllers clearing us near and/or through a VFR aircraft's altitude on the basis that the other aircraft had us in sight and would therefore provide the necessary separation. In this case there is no way the VFR aircraft (a high wing probably cessna) would have had the speed or maneuverability to avoid us if we had not either seen him, or had TCASII. In speaking to the pilot of the VFR aircraft the following day (a fellow employee moonlighting as traffic reporter), his impression of the potential midair was the same as mine. I feel takeoff clrncs with traffic off the departure end predicated on the airborne traffic having the takeoff traffic in sight, is a formula for an accident. I personally won't accept such a clearance in the future. This is also a not uncommon occurrence during descent into burbank or ontario -- RA's with traffic or sheriff's helicopter is not at all unusual. Once again, it is small consolation to me that they have me in sight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG ACR ACFT ON CLB FROM BUR ARPT HAS TCASII RA AND FLC FOLLOWS COMMAND TO AVOID OTHER ACFT WHICH WAS THEN SEEN. OTHER ACFT ALSO TAKES EVASIVE ACTION SINCE HE IS CLRED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH RPTR ACFT.

Narrative: WHEN CLRED FOR TKOF BY BURBANK TWR RWY 15 ON VAN NUYS 7 SID, WE WERE ADVISED THERE WERE 2 ACFT SW OF ARPT, FIXED WING AT 2500 FT AND HELI AT 1500 FT. AFTER TKOF AND ON 210 DEG HDG, 1500 FT, TARGET APPEARED TO BE R OF OUR COURSE AND NO FACTOR. 2500 FT TARGET (TCASII) APPEARED DIRECTLY AHEAD. (TWR ADVISED US BEFORE TKOF THAT THE 2500 FT ACFT HAD US IN SIGHT.) AT APPROX 1500 FT AN RA DIRECTED US TO DECREASE RATE OF CLB, WHICH WE FOLLOWED, LEVELING AT APPROX 2000 FT, 230 KTS. JUST AT START OF RA WE VISUALLY CONTACTED 2500 FT ACFT, STRAIGHT AHEAD, APPEARING TO BE RIGHT IN OUR PATH IF WE CONTINUED TO CLB. THAT ACFT ALSO STARTED TO CLB TO AVOID US. I BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT THE TCASII, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LARGE CHANCE OF A MIDAIR COLLISION. HAVE HAD MANY CASES OF CTLRS CLRING US NEAR AND/OR THROUGH A VFR ACFT'S ALT ON THE BASIS THAT THE OTHER ACFT HAD US IN SIGHT AND WOULD THEREFORE PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SEPARATION. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO WAY THE VFR ACFT (A HIGH WING PROBABLY CESSNA) WOULD HAVE HAD THE SPD OR MANEUVERABILITY TO AVOID US IF WE HAD NOT EITHER SEEN HIM, OR HAD TCASII. IN SPEAKING TO THE PLT OF THE VFR ACFT THE FOLLOWING DAY (A FELLOW EMPLOYEE MOONLIGHTING AS TFC RPTR), HIS IMPRESSION OF THE POTENTIAL MIDAIR WAS THE SAME AS MINE. I FEEL TKOF CLRNCS WITH TFC OFF THE DEP END PREDICATED ON THE AIRBORNE TFC HAVING THE TKOF TFC IN SIGHT, IS A FORMULA FOR AN ACCIDENT. I PERSONALLY WON'T ACCEPT SUCH A CLRNC IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS ALSO A NOT UNCOMMON OCCURRENCE DURING DSCNT INTO BURBANK OR ONTARIO -- RA'S WITH TFC OR SHERIFF'S HELI IS NOT AT ALL UNUSUAL. ONCE AGAIN, IT IS SMALL CONSOLATION TO ME THAT THEY HAVE ME IN SIGHT.

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.