Narrative:

Departures off of runway 31 at lga. The beech duchess took off and was given a 340 degree heading. We were cleared into position and hold on runway 31 and asked if we could maintain visual separation. We indicated that we could but since the ceiling was about 1600 ft (this was lower than ATIS was reporting but we had just arrived and quick turned so we knew it was about 1600 ft) we would only be able to do it for a short time until we got into the clouds so we declined the clearance. Tower then said we only needed to maintain visual separation until we were established on our (360 degrees) heading and then since the headings were 'divergent' we no longer had to maintain visual. We accepted the clearance and were cleared for takeoff. We kept visual on the BE76 until on the 360 degree heading and in the clouds. We were handed off to departure and departure asked if we still had the beech in sight. We did not (we were IMC, etc). He then asked how we were maintaining visual. We said the tower controller said we only had to maintain visual until on the 360 degree heading and the departure controller said this was incorrect, yelled at us, and gave us a new heading. I thought that the tower and departure were better coordinated -- I guess not. I'm now finding that anything that increases departure and arrival rates should be viewed with great fear and declined (ie, visual departure, lahso, simultaneous visuals and visual approachs). All of these procedures seem not completely thought out and the pilots seem to always take the blame.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727 FLC ON A VISUAL SEPARATION CLB SUFFERS A LOSS OF SEPARATION BEHIND A BE76 WHEN THEY ENTER CLOUDS AT 1600 FT.

Narrative: DEPS OFF OF RWY 31 AT LGA. THE BEECH DUCHESS TOOK OFF AND WAS GIVEN A 340 DEG HDG. WE WERE CLRED INTO POS AND HOLD ON RWY 31 AND ASKED IF WE COULD MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. WE INDICATED THAT WE COULD BUT SINCE THE CEILING WAS ABOUT 1600 FT (THIS WAS LOWER THAN ATIS WAS RPTING BUT WE HAD JUST ARRIVED AND QUICK TURNED SO WE KNEW IT WAS ABOUT 1600 FT) WE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO DO IT FOR A SHORT TIME UNTIL WE GOT INTO THE CLOUDS SO WE DECLINED THE CLRNC. TWR THEN SAID WE ONLY NEEDED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION UNTIL WE WERE ESTABLISHED ON OUR (360 DEGS) HDG AND THEN SINCE THE HEADINGS WERE 'DIVERGENT' WE NO LONGER HAD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL. WE ACCEPTED THE CLRNC AND WERE CLRED FOR TKOF. WE KEPT VISUAL ON THE BE76 UNTIL ON THE 360 DEG HDG AND IN THE CLOUDS. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO DEP AND DEP ASKED IF WE STILL HAD THE BEECH IN SIGHT. WE DID NOT (WE WERE IMC, ETC). HE THEN ASKED HOW WE WERE MAINTAINING VISUAL. WE SAID THE TWR CTLR SAID WE ONLY HAD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL UNTIL ON THE 360 DEG HDG AND THE DEP CTLR SAID THIS WAS INCORRECT, YELLED AT US, AND GAVE US A NEW HEADING. I THOUGHT THAT THE TWR AND DEP WERE BETTER COORDINATED -- I GUESS NOT. I'M NOW FINDING THAT ANYTHING THAT INCREASES DEP AND ARR RATES SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH GREAT FEAR AND DECLINED (IE, VISUAL DEP, LAHSO, SIMULTANEOUS VISUALS AND VISUAL APCHS). ALL OF THESE PROCS SEEM NOT COMPLETELY THOUGHT OUT AND THE PLTS SEEM TO ALWAYS TAKE THE BLAME.

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.