Narrative:

The near miss took place on takeoff out of pdx where we came close to striking another aircraft. When passing approximately 750 ft, the tower gave us a traffic report 'aircraft Y crossing midfield at 1000 ft.' I tried to level the aircraft which was climbing greater than 6000 FPM and scanned for traffic. I saw an aircraft flash overhead. Our altitude was about 850-900 ft MSL. If I had hesitated on leveling the aircraft, I would not be here to write this report. I'm not sure why the tower had vectored the aircraft over the field at this altitude, but consider this action to be very dangerous. I don't think the tower anticipated the performance of our near empty aircraft when doing this. The result of this misjudgement was a near miss. I think there was another factor. That being, we were in position waiting for takeoff clearance, and there was an aircraft Z on a 3 mi final. Maybe he felt pressured to clear us for takeoff. If he had held us on the runway the other aircraft would have had to go around. For us this is a very critical phase of flight with a lot of mode changes, callouts, confign changes, and frequency changes. Our attention is usually straight ahead, not to the side. In the future I will have to add this area too. Another factor is cargo aircraft are not required to have TCASII. This would have been a great help!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 PIC MAKES EVASIVE DSCNT MANEUVER TO AVOID COLLISION WITH UNKNOWN ACFT XING OVERHEAD. PIC BELIEVES CTLR DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT B757 CLB RATE, XING TFC XOVER POINT, AND DECREASING SPACING BTWN LNDG AND DEP TFC.

Narrative: THE NEAR MISS TOOK PLACE ON TKOF OUT OF PDX WHERE WE CAME CLOSE TO STRIKING ANOTHER ACFT. WHEN PASSING APPROX 750 FT, THE TWR GAVE US A TFC RPT 'ACFT Y XING MIDFIELD AT 1000 FT.' I TRIED TO LEVEL THE ACFT WHICH WAS CLBING GREATER THAN 6000 FPM AND SCANNED FOR TFC. I SAW AN ACFT FLASH OVERHEAD. OUR ALT WAS ABOUT 850-900 FT MSL. IF I HAD HESITATED ON LEVELING THE ACFT, I WOULD NOT BE HERE TO WRITE THIS RPT. I'M NOT SURE WHY THE TWR HAD VECTORED THE ACFT OVER THE FIELD AT THIS ALT, BUT CONSIDER THIS ACTION TO BE VERY DANGEROUS. I DON'T THINK THE TWR ANTICIPATED THE PERFORMANCE OF OUR NEAR EMPTY ACFT WHEN DOING THIS. THE RESULT OF THIS MISJUDGEMENT WAS A NEAR MISS. I THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER FACTOR. THAT BEING, WE WERE IN POS WAITING FOR TKOF CLRNC, AND THERE WAS AN ACFT Z ON A 3 MI FINAL. MAYBE HE FELT PRESSURED TO CLR US FOR TKOF. IF HE HAD HELD US ON THE RWY THE OTHER ACFT WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO AROUND. FOR US THIS IS A VERY CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT WITH A LOT OF MODE CHANGES, CALLOUTS, CONFIGN CHANGES, AND FREQ CHANGES. OUR ATTN IS USUALLY STRAIGHT AHEAD, NOT TO THE SIDE. IN THE FUTURE I WILL HAVE TO ADD THIS AREA TOO. ANOTHER FACTOR IS CARGO ACFT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE TCASII. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT HELP!

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.