Narrative:

Departed runway 26L in visual conditions (ont departure ATIS at XA53Z reported calm; 4 SM haze clear altimeter 30.26). Off ground at XB11Z. Within 1 min; tower advised us of caravan traffic at 10 O'clock position and also advised the said traffic of our position; just having departed the runway. The caravan reported us in sight and was advised by ATC to maintain visual separation. ATC then advised us of the caravan's visual contact of us. We still did not have the traffic in sight. A few seconds later; I picked up visual traffic at 10 O'clock position above us; but then realized it was a larger airline more distant from us than the caravan. TCAS issued an advisory to reduce our climb rate to less than 300 FPM and showed traffic 400 ft above us and converging from 9:30 O'clock position. The first officer (PF) adjusted climb rate accordingly and I spotted the caravan off our left side (9:30 O'clock position) in what appeared to be a climbing right turn. We passed within 300 vertical ft and 1/2 mi horizontal. We were then xferred to departure control and as we switched frequency; heard the end of a comment from departure control to someone (assuming it was the caravan pilot) about thinking it was a little close but that for some reason the other controller thought we should join up 5 mi off the runway. With our typical speed and climb rate departing airport; I don't feel the controller should have cleared us for departure until the arriving traffic was clear of the departure path. In clearing us for takeoff; why did he bring the caravan across the departure end of the runway? I'm assuming the caravan was being brought across the extended runway centerline to fly a right downwind visual approach for runway 26R. Wouldn't it have been better to bring him over the center of the field; or parallel to our runway until he could turn him behind our flight path? Even with the assistance of TCAS; in the haze I wasn't able to pick up the small aircraft until he was about 1 mi from us. Also; I really don't appreciate having my IFR separation dropped just because the conflicting aircraft's crew reports our aircraft in sight. What if he is actually seeing another aircraft instead of us? (Just as I initially spotted a more distant aircraft than his). In this case; the caravan pilot didn't provide us with enough separation to ensure our safety. His aircraft's movements as we got close indicated that he may have also been responding to a TCAS RA as well. Next time; I would prefer a delayed takeoff clearance until the path is clear -- or a restr altitude for us to maintain that provides IFR separation unless both conflicting aircraft's crews have acknowledged visual contact with each other.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD11 DEP FROM ONT EXPERIENCED TCAS RA WITH CARAVAN TFC ENTERING THE PATTERN.

Narrative: DEPARTED RWY 26L IN VISUAL CONDITIONS (ONT DEP ATIS AT XA53Z RPTED CALM; 4 SM HAZE CLR ALTIMETER 30.26). OFF GND AT XB11Z. WITHIN 1 MIN; TWR ADVISED US OF CARAVAN TFC AT 10 O'CLOCK POS AND ALSO ADVISED THE SAID TFC OF OUR POS; JUST HAVING DEPARTED THE RWY. THE CARAVAN RPTED US IN SIGHT AND WAS ADVISED BY ATC TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. ATC THEN ADVISED US OF THE CARAVAN'S VISUAL CONTACT OF US. WE STILL DID NOT HAVE THE TFC IN SIGHT. A FEW SECONDS LATER; I PICKED UP VISUAL TFC AT 10 O'CLOCK POS ABOVE US; BUT THEN REALIZED IT WAS A LARGER AIRLINE MORE DISTANT FROM US THAN THE CARAVAN. TCAS ISSUED AN ADVISORY TO REDUCE OUR CLB RATE TO LESS THAN 300 FPM AND SHOWED TFC 400 FT ABOVE US AND CONVERGING FROM 9:30 O'CLOCK POS. THE FO (PF) ADJUSTED CLB RATE ACCORDINGLY AND I SPOTTED THE CARAVAN OFF OUR L SIDE (9:30 O'CLOCK POS) IN WHAT APPEARED TO BE A CLBING R TURN. WE PASSED WITHIN 300 VERT FT AND 1/2 MI HORIZ. WE WERE THEN XFERRED TO DEP CTL AND AS WE SWITCHED FREQ; HEARD THE END OF A COMMENT FROM DEP CTL TO SOMEONE (ASSUMING IT WAS THE CARAVAN PLT) ABOUT THINKING IT WAS A LITTLE CLOSE BUT THAT FOR SOME REASON THE OTHER CTLR THOUGHT WE SHOULD JOIN UP 5 MI OFF THE RWY. WITH OUR TYPICAL SPD AND CLB RATE DEPARTING ARPT; I DON'T FEEL THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE CLRED US FOR DEP UNTIL THE ARRIVING TFC WAS CLR OF THE DEP PATH. IN CLRING US FOR TKOF; WHY DID HE BRING THE CARAVAN ACROSS THE DEP END OF THE RWY? I'M ASSUMING THE CARAVAN WAS BEING BROUGHT ACROSS THE EXTENDED RWY CTRLINE TO FLY A R DOWNWIND VISUAL APCH FOR RWY 26R. WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN BETTER TO BRING HIM OVER THE CTR OF THE FIELD; OR PARALLEL TO OUR RWY UNTIL HE COULD TURN HIM BEHIND OUR FLT PATH? EVEN WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF TCAS; IN THE HAZE I WASN'T ABLE TO PICK UP THE SMALL ACFT UNTIL HE WAS ABOUT 1 MI FROM US. ALSO; I REALLY DON'T APPRECIATE HAVING MY IFR SEPARATION DROPPED JUST BECAUSE THE CONFLICTING ACFT'S CREW RPTS OUR ACFT IN SIGHT. WHAT IF HE IS ACTUALLY SEEING ANOTHER ACFT INSTEAD OF US? (JUST AS I INITIALLY SPOTTED A MORE DISTANT ACFT THAN HIS). IN THIS CASE; THE CARAVAN PLT DIDN'T PROVIDE US WITH ENOUGH SEPARATION TO ENSURE OUR SAFETY. HIS ACFT'S MOVEMENTS AS WE GOT CLOSE INDICATED THAT HE MAY HAVE ALSO BEEN RESPONDING TO A TCAS RA AS WELL. NEXT TIME; I WOULD PREFER A DELAYED TKOF CLRNC UNTIL THE PATH IS CLR -- OR A RESTR ALT FOR US TO MAINTAIN THAT PROVIDES IFR SEPARATION UNLESS BOTH CONFLICTING ACFT'S CREWS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED VISUAL CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.