Narrative:

Runway 28 was the active. I was working local control. VFR WX conditions, but visibility hazy (4F). GA helicopter X was working low level over the city (5 mi south of the airport) taking photos, talking to me. Helicopter X reported 3 mi south of the airport inbound for landing. He is a locally based aircraft who has a landing area at the southwest corner of the south taxiway (hotel) which runs parallel to runway 10/28. I told him to proceed inbound and remain south of runway 10/28. Air carrier Y called ready for takeoff. I taxied him into position and hold to wait for an small transport that had just departed to turn out of the departure lane. I then cleared air carrier Y for takeoff. Helicopter X is not in sight, yet I am using radar sep via the BRITE. At the point that X was in sight and Y had already started his takeoff roll (X is now over H parallel to runway 28). I did not feel it was necessary or advantageous to make a transmission to air carrier Y at this point, to advise him of the helicopter. Both aircraft were in sight and I was applying visual sep as per 7110.65 7-10 PAR A1+2. The next transmission was unintelligible. Later, listening to the tape, I learned that air carrier Y was making a right turn because of the helicopter. Note: that section of the tape had to be listened to 3 times to determine completely what his transmission was. Since I missed the transmission I next cleared X to land. Air carrier Y then said he was going to report a near miss with the helicopter. Pilot of the helicopter advised the supervisor he was over H. The distance between the centerline of H and centerline of runway 28 is 700'. Pilot of air carrier Y advised the supervisor that he first saw the helicopter when he was rolling and adjusted his aircraft accordingly to allow for the right turn to avoid the helicopter. This is an everyday operation for this tower and there are no local procedures mandating an exchange of traffic. Visual sep was applied as per the 7110.65. I had radio contact with both aircraft. I had both aircraft in sight. Exchange of traffic was not necessary, traffic was no factor in my opinion. It has been my experience that xmissions shouldn't be made to aircraft in a takeoff roll status unless absolutely necessary.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR, TAKING OFF, MADE LOW ALT TURN TO AVOID POSSIBLE CLOSE PROX WITH GA-HELICOPTER.

Narrative: RWY 28 WAS THE ACTIVE. I WAS WORKING LCL CTL. VFR WX CONDITIONS, BUT VIS HAZY (4F). GA HELI X WAS WORKING LOW LEVEL OVER THE CITY (5 MI S OF THE ARPT) TAKING PHOTOS, TALKING TO ME. HELI X RPTED 3 MI S OF THE ARPT INBND FOR LNDG. HE IS A LOCALLY BASED ACFT WHO HAS A LNDG AREA AT THE SW CORNER OF THE S TXWY (HOTEL) WHICH RUNS PARALLEL TO RWY 10/28. I TOLD HIM TO PROCEED INBND AND REMAIN S OF RWY 10/28. ACR Y CALLED READY FOR TKOF. I TAXIED HIM INTO POS AND HOLD TO WAIT FOR AN SMT THAT HAD JUST DEPARTED TO TURN OUT OF THE DEP LANE. I THEN CLRED ACR Y FOR TKOF. HELI X IS NOT IN SIGHT, YET I AM USING RADAR SEP VIA THE BRITE. AT THE POINT THAT X WAS IN SIGHT AND Y HAD ALREADY STARTED HIS TKOF ROLL (X IS NOW OVER H PARALLEL TO RWY 28). I DID NOT FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO MAKE A XMISSION TO ACR Y AT THIS POINT, TO ADVISE HIM OF THE HELI. BOTH ACFT WERE IN SIGHT AND I WAS APPLYING VISUAL SEP AS PER 7110.65 7-10 PAR A1+2. THE NEXT XMISSION WAS UNINTELLIGIBLE. LATER, LISTENING TO THE TAPE, I LEARNED THAT ACR Y WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN BECAUSE OF THE HELI. NOTE: THAT SECTION OF THE TAPE HAD TO BE LISTENED TO 3 TIMES TO DETERMINE COMPLETELY WHAT HIS XMISSION WAS. SINCE I MISSED THE XMISSION I NEXT CLRED X TO LAND. ACR Y THEN SAID HE WAS GOING TO RPT A NEAR MISS WITH THE HELI. PLT OF THE HELI ADVISED THE SUPVR HE WAS OVER H. THE DISTANCE BTWN THE CENTERLINE OF H AND CENTERLINE OF RWY 28 IS 700'. PLT OF ACR Y ADVISED THE SUPVR THAT HE FIRST SAW THE HELI WHEN HE WAS ROLLING AND ADJUSTED HIS ACFT ACCORDINGLY TO ALLOW FOR THE RIGHT TURN TO AVOID THE HELI. THIS IS AN EVERYDAY OPERATION FOR THIS TWR AND THERE ARE NO LCL PROCS MANDATING AN EXCHANGE OF TFC. VISUAL SEP WAS APPLIED AS PER THE 7110.65. I HAD RADIO CONTACT WITH BOTH ACFT. I HAD BOTH ACFT IN SIGHT. EXCHANGE OF TFC WAS NOT NECESSARY, TFC WAS NO FACTOR IN MY OPINION. IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT XMISSIONS SHOULDN'T BE MADE TO ACFT IN A TKOF ROLL STATUS UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.