Narrative:

We were third of 3 commuter departures in quick succession off same runway. Instructions were to turn to 200 degrees at the shoreline, contact departure (previous departures were also on 200 degree heading). We were maintaining visual contact with preceding traffic. He was at 1-2 O'clock and slightly higher, though we were faster and were trading some airspeed for a greater climb rate. First officer was flying and kept traffic in sight by offsetting to left (traffic in our 1 O'clock position, 7 O'clock to them). ATC idented both aircraft and gave them a turn to 130 degrees. We quickly questioned ATC about the same turn for us. I then asked their altitude. It was less than 500 ft above us and they were turning directly into us. We stopped our climb and advised ATC such. ATC went off on some harangue that included popular phrases like visual separation, handoffs, and others that I paid zero attention to because we were too busy averting a perfectly choreographed midair collision. I can only presume that ATC confused the radars on radar or possibly could not distinguish between the 2 because of their close proximity. Alternatively, the assumption was that, because the 2 aircraft departed in sequence from the same runway, they would be directly in trail of each other. Not so.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CTLR TECHNIQUE.

Narrative: WE WERE THIRD OF 3 COMMUTER DEPS IN QUICK SUCCESSION OFF SAME RWY. INSTRUCTIONS WERE TO TURN TO 200 DEGS AT THE SHORELINE, CONTACT DEP (PREVIOUS DEPS WERE ALSO ON 200 DEG HDG). WE WERE MAINTAINING VISUAL CONTACT WITH PRECEDING TFC. HE WAS AT 1-2 O'CLOCK AND SLIGHTLY HIGHER, THOUGH WE WERE FASTER AND WERE TRADING SOME AIRSPD FOR A GREATER CLB RATE. FO WAS FLYING AND KEPT TFC IN SIGHT BY OFFSETTING TO L (TFC IN OUR 1 O'CLOCK POS, 7 O'CLOCK TO THEM). ATC IDENTED BOTH ACFT AND GAVE THEM A TURN TO 130 DEGS. WE QUICKLY QUESTIONED ATC ABOUT THE SAME TURN FOR US. I THEN ASKED THEIR ALT. IT WAS LESS THAN 500 FT ABOVE US AND THEY WERE TURNING DIRECTLY INTO US. WE STOPPED OUR CLB AND ADVISED ATC SUCH. ATC WENT OFF ON SOME HARANGUE THAT INCLUDED POPULAR PHRASES LIKE VISUAL SEPARATION, HDOFS, AND OTHERS THAT I PAID ZERO ATTN TO BECAUSE WE WERE TOO BUSY AVERTING A PERFECTLY CHOREOGRAPHED MIDAIR COLLISION. I CAN ONLY PRESUME THAT ATC CONFUSED THE RADARS ON RADAR OR POSSIBLY COULD NOT DISTINGUISH BTWN THE 2 BECAUSE OF THEIR CLOSE PROX. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT, BECAUSE THE 2 ACFT DEPARTED IN SEQUENCE FROM THE SAME RWY, THEY WOULD BE DIRECTLY IN TRAIL OF EACH OTHER. NOT SO.

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.