Narrative:

This incident idents a potential aircraft conflict due to las departure procedures. We were given the idale departure from las to XXX. Our company flight, a B737-700, was ahead of us and given takeoff clearance on runway 25R. We were cleared for takeoff on runway 25R just as the other flight was lifting off the runway and we began our roll. The first officer was flying this leg. We were set up for the RNAV departure with both the navigation switches in navigation. The first officer selected 'lvl chg' and 'LNAV' at 400-500 ft AGL. At approximately 1500 ft AGL, the first officer selected autoplt and I selected and executed an update to lodzy on the legs page and off we went. I was watching the flight in front of us and wondered what departure he was given because, as we approached lodzy, that flight was still heading 250 degrees. We were about 3-4 NM in trail of him. Our aircraft initiated its LNAV turn towards idale and, at that time, the controller gave us a climb clearance to FL190. I believe the other flight was issued a similar clearance to FL190. The problem arose when the other flight was issued a turn towards the east. Potentially, we could have created a conflict. Both the controller and I caught it right away, and there was no issue, but the potential was certainly there. I asked the departure controller what departure procedure the other flight was given and he said it was a 'classic' departure, by which I believe he meant it was not an RNAV departure. I think he went on to say the other flight was on the las vegas departure which is just a radar vector departure. In this case, everyone was doing what they were supposed to be doing but, due to the nature of the departure procedures, a conflict may result. Recommendations: 1) change all the departure procedure at las to require a turn at 4 NM, whether the aircraft is on a RNAV departure or 'classic' departure. 2) company dispatch should not file for the las vegas departure simply because we operate so many flts from that airport. 3) require ground and tower controllers to coordinate departures so that a las vegas departure is not followed closely by an idale departure. 4) conduct training for the departure controllers in las concerning this incident. 5) like usual, get our company ATC specialist in the loop.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF B737-300 THINKS LAS LCL CTLRS AND L30 TRACON SHOULD DO A BETTER JOB OF COORDINATING IDALE RNAV DEPS AND EBOUND LAS VEGAS RADAR VECTOR DEPS, TO REDUCE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS.

Narrative: THIS INCIDENT IDENTS A POTENTIAL ACFT CONFLICT DUE TO LAS DEP PROCS. WE WERE GIVEN THE IDALE DEP FROM LAS TO XXX. OUR COMPANY FLT, A B737-700, WAS AHEAD OF US AND GIVEN TKOF CLRNC ON RWY 25R. WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 25R JUST AS THE OTHER FLT WAS LIFTING OFF THE RWY AND WE BEGAN OUR ROLL. THE FO WAS FLYING THIS LEG. WE WERE SET UP FOR THE RNAV DEP WITH BOTH THE NAV SWITCHES IN NAV. THE FO SELECTED 'LVL CHG' AND 'LNAV' AT 400-500 FT AGL. AT APPROX 1500 FT AGL, THE FO SELECTED AUTOPLT AND I SELECTED AND EXECUTED AN UPDATE TO LODZY ON THE LEGS PAGE AND OFF WE WENT. I WAS WATCHING THE FLT IN FRONT OF US AND WONDERED WHAT DEP HE WAS GIVEN BECAUSE, AS WE APCHED LODZY, THAT FLT WAS STILL HEADING 250 DEGS. WE WERE ABOUT 3-4 NM IN TRAIL OF HIM. OUR ACFT INITIATED ITS LNAV TURN TOWARDS IDALE AND, AT THAT TIME, THE CTLR GAVE US A CLB CLRNC TO FL190. I BELIEVE THE OTHER FLT WAS ISSUED A SIMILAR CLRNC TO FL190. THE PROB AROSE WHEN THE OTHER FLT WAS ISSUED A TURN TOWARDS THE E. POTENTIALLY, WE COULD HAVE CREATED A CONFLICT. BOTH THE CTLR AND I CAUGHT IT RIGHT AWAY, AND THERE WAS NO ISSUE, BUT THE POTENTIAL WAS CERTAINLY THERE. I ASKED THE DEP CTLR WHAT DEP PROC THE OTHER FLT WAS GIVEN AND HE SAID IT WAS A 'CLASSIC' DEP, BY WHICH I BELIEVE HE MEANT IT WAS NOT AN RNAV DEP. I THINK HE WENT ON TO SAY THE OTHER FLT WAS ON THE LAS VEGAS DEP WHICH IS JUST A RADAR VECTOR DEP. IN THIS CASE, EVERYONE WAS DOING WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING BUT, DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE DEP PROCS, A CONFLICT MAY RESULT. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) CHANGE ALL THE DEP PROC AT LAS TO REQUIRE A TURN AT 4 NM, WHETHER THE ACFT IS ON A RNAV DEP OR 'CLASSIC' DEP. 2) COMPANY DISPATCH SHOULD NOT FILE FOR THE LAS VEGAS DEP SIMPLY BECAUSE WE OPERATE SO MANY FLTS FROM THAT ARPT. 3) REQUIRE GND AND TWR CTLRS TO COORDINATE DEPS SO THAT A LAS VEGAS DEP IS NOT FOLLOWED CLOSELY BY AN IDALE DEP. 4) CONDUCT TRAINING FOR THE DEP CTLRS IN LAS CONCERNING THIS INCIDENT. 5) LIKE USUAL, GET OUR COMPANY ATC SPECIALIST IN THE LOOP.

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.