Narrative:

Medium large transport X departed pit runway 10R with a right turn south. Medium large transport Y was on an ILS approach to runway 32, 20 mi final. Because of incomplete coordination, departure thought medium large transport Y would maintain 6000' while medium large transport X tunneled underneath at 5000'. Actually, medium large transport Y was cleared for the approach and both aircraft occupied same airspace at 4000' 6 mi southeast pit. This happened as we were changing landing directions from runway 10R to 32. Medium large transport X was last departure off 10R and medium large transport Y was first arrival on R32. Both controllers realized what was taking place and attempted corrective action, but it was too late. I believe it was caused by 3 or 4 contributing factors: departure should have paralleled the course of the arrival until positive medium large transport Y would level at 6000'. You don't vector an aircraft right at another under those conditions. Controller is practically brand new--qualified 1 month. Approach should not have changed medium large transport Y to tower with approach clearance until seeing what departure was going to do with medium large transport X. Supervisor could have been more positive in telling each controller what to do. I didn't because I assumed telling people about 2 aircraft 20 mi apart was sufficient warning for them to be kept away. Supplemental information from acn 92110: out of approximately 2000' we were given a clearance to fly heading 200 degrees, climb to 4000' and contact departure. Departure cleared us to 5000'. Out of 4170 departure told us to maintain 4000'. After reaching a maximum altitude of 4300', I leveled at 4000'. Approximately 15 seconds after leveling at 4000' I saw the conflicting aircraft at about 11 O'clock, left to right, on a collision course. I made an immediate evasive left turn. The conflicting aircraft (also a company medium large transport Y) made a simultaneous evasive turn to the left. As we were in the evasive turns, departure control called out 12 O'clock traffic, 3 mi. The captain called pit departure from tampa on the landline. The supervisor indicated to him that there had been a controller error and that it was 'under investigation.' the supervisor told the captain that their (ATC) equipment indicated 300' sep. Supplemental information from acn 91276: at approximately 4000' MSL tower instructed us to climb immediately to 5000', that we had traffic off our right side. At this time the copilot, who was flying the aircraft, and I saw the traffic (later idented as medium large transport X) approximately 500' vertical and 800' horizontal to our right in a left climbing turn away from us. We were originally being vectored for runway 10R but were reassigned runway 32. Supplemental information from acn 91794: apparently medium large transport X had just departed runway 10R before they changed runways and was given a departure that crossed the approach path to runway 32. The only traffic advisory we were given was with the immediate climb instruction.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC HAD NMAC LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION BETWEEN ARR DEP MLG ACFT AFTER RWY CHANGE, LACK OF COORD AND ACFT UNDER SEPARATION ATC JURISDICTION.

Narrative: MLG X DEPARTED PIT RWY 10R WITH A RIGHT TURN S. MLG Y WAS ON AN ILS APCH TO RWY 32, 20 MI FINAL. BECAUSE OF INCOMPLETE COORD, DEP THOUGHT MLG Y WOULD MAINTAIN 6000' WHILE MLG X TUNNELED UNDERNEATH AT 5000'. ACTUALLY, MLG Y WAS CLRED FOR THE APCH AND BOTH ACFT OCCUPIED SAME AIRSPACE AT 4000' 6 MI SE PIT. THIS HAPPENED AS WE WERE CHANGING LNDG DIRECTIONS FROM RWY 10R TO 32. MLG X WAS LAST DEP OFF 10R AND MLG Y WAS FIRST ARR ON R32. BOTH CTLRS REALIZED WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE AND ATTEMPTED CORRECTIVE ACTION, BUT IT WAS TOO LATE. I BELIEVE IT WAS CAUSED BY 3 OR 4 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: DEP SHOULD HAVE PARALLELED THE COURSE OF THE ARR UNTIL POSITIVE MLG Y WOULD LEVEL AT 6000'. YOU DON'T VECTOR AN ACFT RIGHT AT ANOTHER UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. CTLR IS PRACTICALLY BRAND NEW--QUALIFIED 1 MONTH. APCH SHOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED MLG Y TO TWR WITH APCH CLRNC UNTIL SEEING WHAT DEP WAS GOING TO DO WITH MLG X. SUPVR COULD HAVE BEEN MORE POSITIVE IN TELLING EACH CTLR WHAT TO DO. I DIDN'T BECAUSE I ASSUMED TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT 2 ACFT 20 MI APART WAS SUFFICIENT WARNING FOR THEM TO BE KEPT AWAY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 92110: OUT OF APPROX 2000' WE WERE GIVEN A CLRNC TO FLY HDG 200 DEGS, CLB TO 4000' AND CONTACT DEP. DEP CLRED US TO 5000'. OUT OF 4170 DEP TOLD US TO MAINTAIN 4000'. AFTER REACHING A MAX ALT OF 4300', I LEVELED AT 4000'. APPROX 15 SECS AFTER LEVELING AT 4000' I SAW THE CONFLICTING ACFT AT ABOUT 11 O'CLOCK, LEFT TO RIGHT, ON A COLLISION COURSE. I MADE AN IMMEDIATE EVASIVE LEFT TURN. THE CONFLICTING ACFT (ALSO A COMPANY MLG Y) MADE A SIMULTANEOUS EVASIVE TURN TO THE LEFT. AS WE WERE IN THE EVASIVE TURNS, DEP CTL CALLED OUT 12 O'CLOCK TFC, 3 MI. THE CAPT CALLED PIT DEP FROM TAMPA ON THE LANDLINE. THE SUPVR INDICATED TO HIM THAT THERE HAD BEEN A CTLR ERROR AND THAT IT WAS 'UNDER INVESTIGATION.' THE SUPVR TOLD THE CAPT THAT THEIR (ATC) EQUIPMENT INDICATED 300' SEP. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 91276: AT APPROX 4000' MSL TWR INSTRUCTED US TO CLB IMMEDIATELY TO 5000', THAT WE HAD TFC OFF OUR RIGHT SIDE. AT THIS TIME THE COPLT, WHO WAS FLYING THE ACFT, AND I SAW THE TFC (LATER IDENTED AS MLG X) APPROX 500' VERT AND 800' HORIZ TO OUR RIGHT IN A LEFT CLBING TURN AWAY FROM US. WE WERE ORIGINALLY BEING VECTORED FOR RWY 10R BUT WERE REASSIGNED RWY 32. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 91794: APPARENTLY MLG X HAD JUST DEPARTED RWY 10R BEFORE THEY CHANGED RWYS AND WAS GIVEN A DEP THAT CROSSED THE APCH PATH TO RWY 32. THE ONLY TFC ADVISORY WE WERE GIVEN WAS WITH THE IMMEDIATE CLB INSTRUCTION.

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.