Narrative:

The first instance I was made aware of our close proximity to the erj-145 was an utterly unintelligible and faint radio call from the 18C tower controller. What I remember hearing was; 'air carrier flight number; there is conflicting traffic on the go around for runway 23'. It was later learned that the erj aircraft was executing a balked landing on runway 23. This departure path placed the erj aircraft on a converging course with our aircraft. At the time we were made aware of the erj in question; we were beyond V1 and were beginning to rotate the aircraft. I caught a glimpse of the erj-145 as the nose was smoothly pitched up into the takeoff command bars. As a rough approximation; there was about 200 - 400 ft separation from our aircraft and the erj and our paths nearly converged exactly at the same point. We queried the controller as to whether it was SOP to have simultaneous operations on 23 and 18C to which the reply was something to the effect of; 'we do this all the time'. What makes this event particularly troubling is that; had we not been at an approximate tow of 51;300 pounds; the upshot of this event could have included loss to life and property. It is of the opinion of both my captain and me that there was only one action that; within the limitations of the ATC system in clt; could have prevented our egregiously close encounter; monitoring the ATC tower frequency for runway 23. The risk factors were: 1) simultaneous departures on 18C and arrivals on 23; 2) differing tower frequencies for runway 23 and 18C; 3) an unstabilized approach performed by 'air carrier'; which resulted in a balked landing. Change: 1) not allowing simultaneous departures on 18C and arrivals on 23; 2) have the same tower frequencies for runway 23 and 18C or find an alternate means to keep pilots in the communications loop.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier departure from Runway 18C at CLT described a conflict with traffic executing a go around on Runway 23; the reporter suggesting these simultaneous operations be terminated.

Narrative: The first instance I was made aware of our close proximity to the ERJ-145 was an utterly unintelligible and faint radio call from the 18C Tower Controller. What I remember hearing was; 'Air Carrier flight number; there is conflicting traffic on the go around for Runway 23'. It was later learned that the ERJ aircraft was executing a balked landing on Runway 23. This departure path placed the ERJ aircraft on a converging course with our aircraft. At the time we were made aware of the ERJ in question; we were beyond V1 and were beginning to rotate the aircraft. I caught a glimpse of the ERJ-145 as the nose was smoothly pitched up into the takeoff command bars. As a rough approximation; there was about 200 - 400 FT separation from our aircraft and the ERJ and our paths nearly converged exactly at the same point. We queried the Controller as to whether it was SOP to have simultaneous operations on 23 and 18C to which the reply was something to the effect of; 'we do this all the time'. What makes this event particularly troubling is that; had we not been at an approximate TOW of 51;300 LBS; the upshot of this event could have included loss to life and property. It is of the opinion of both my Captain and me that there was only one action that; within the limitations of the ATC system in CLT; could have prevented our egregiously close encounter; monitoring the ATC Tower frequency for Runway 23. The risk factors were: 1) Simultaneous departures on 18C and arrivals on 23; 2) Differing Tower frequencies for Runway 23 and 18C; 3) An unstabilized approach performed by 'Air Carrier'; which resulted in a balked landing. Change: 1) Not allowing simultaneous departures on 18C and arrivals on 23; 2) Have the same Tower frequencies for Runway 23 and 18C or find an alternate means to keep pilots in the communications loop.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.