Narrative:

The tower controller instructed us to go around at approximately 300 ft AGL, because an air carrier X aircraft was very slow in his takeoff roll. A heading of 280 degrees was immediately flown as instructed on the go around. I looked out my left side view window and observed air carrier X aircraft climbing dangerously close beneath us. The tower controller, sounding very rushed, instructed us to make a left turn to 180 degrees. I instructed the first officer to turn 20 degrees to right and advised tower controller 'negative on left turn we are too close to air carrier X, we are on a 300 degree heading, what altitude do you want.' tower controller instructed us to maintain 4000 ft. The climb was stopped at 4200 ft and returned to 4000 ft. If I had complied with the left turn instruction of 180 degrees, I would have flown directly over air carrier X climbing aircraft whom was already too close and still getting closer. Estimate vertical separation was 500 to 700 ft. Horizontal separation was 0 to 80 ft. (Air carrier X right wing appear to be under our left wing.) in addition, runway 27L was also in operation, we had been approaching for runway 27R. Runway 27's parallel are very seldom used in dtw. I believe contributing factor maybe lack of experience of tower controller in a go around situation of seldom used runway 27 parallel approachs. There was an aircraft on taxiway delta taxiing onto runway for departure and we were cleared to land. The aircraft events were too close before our instructed go around. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: callback revealed that the runway configuration was not the normal one. The local controller appeared to be controling both runways. Once the conflict became apparent and the reporter advised of the refusal of the assigned heading, another controller stepped in to resolve the conflict.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TWR CALLED A GAR WHEN SPACING BECAME TOO TIGHT WITH ACFT TAKING OFF ON THE SAME RWY. AN INCORRECT HEADING FOR THE GAR WAS ISSUED AND REFUSED. SEE AND AVOID RESOLVED THE CONFLICT IN COORDINATION WITH THE LOCAL CTLR.

Narrative: THE TWR CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO GAR AT APPROX 300 FT AGL, BECAUSE AN ACR X ACFT WAS VERY SLOW IN HIS TKOF ROLL. A HEADING OF 280 DEGS WAS IMMEDIATELY FLOWN AS INSTRUCTED ON THE GAR. I LOOKED OUT MY L SIDE VIEW WINDOW AND OBSERVED ACR X ACFT CLIMBING DANGEROUSLY CLOSE BENEATH US. THE TWR CTLR, SOUNDING VERY RUSHED, INSTRUCTED US TO MAKE A L TURN TO 180 DEGS. I INSTRUCTED THE FO TO TURN 20 DEGS TO R AND ADVISED TWR CTLR 'NEGATIVE ON L TURN WE ARE TOO CLOSE TO ACR X, WE ARE ON A 300 DEG HEADING, WHAT ALTITUDE DO YOU WANT.' TWR CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO MAINTAIN 4000 FT. THE CLIMB WAS STOPPED AT 4200 FT AND RETURNED TO 4000 FT. IF I HAD COMPLIED WITH THE L TURN INSTRUCTION OF 180 DEGS, I WOULD HAVE FLOWN DIRECTLY OVER ACR X CLIMBING ACFT WHOM WAS ALREADY TOO CLOSE AND STILL GETTING CLOSER. ESTIMATE VERTICAL SEPARATION WAS 500 TO 700 FT. HORIZONTAL SEPARATION WAS 0 TO 80 FT. (ACR X R WING APPEAR TO BE UNDER OUR L WING.) IN ADDITION, RWY 27L WAS ALSO IN OP, WE HAD BEEN APCHING FOR RWY 27R. RWY 27'S PARALLEL ARE VERY SELDOM USED IN DTW. I BELIEVE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR MAYBE LACK OF EXPERIENCE OF TWR CTLR IN A GAR SIT OF SELDOM USED RWY 27 PARALLEL APCHS. THERE WAS AN ACFT ON TXWY DELTA TAXIING ONTO RWY FOR DEP AND WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. THE ACFT EVENTS WERE TOO CLOSE BEFORE OUR INSTRUCTED GAR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: CALLBACK REVEALED THAT THE RWY CONFIGURATION WAS NOT THE NORMAL ONE. THE LOCAL CTLR APPEARED TO BE CTLING BOTH RWYS. ONCE THE CONFLICT BECAME APPARENT AND THE RPTR ADVISED OF THE REFUSAL OF THE ASSIGNED HEADING, ANOTHER CTLR STEPPED IN TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT.

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.