Narrative:

Departed dab with initial clearance of runway heading and 5000 ft. Handed off to departure control and checked in passing 1700 ft. Control called out traffic and instructed us to immediately descend to 1500 ft and turn right. A firm correction back to 1500 ft (maximum altitude attained 2000 ft) was accomplished and a prompt 30 degree bank right turn was initiated. After clear of conflict, I was told to contact controller supervisor for more information upon reaching destination of atl. Flight proceeded without further incident to atl. In conversation with tower supervisor, he indicated that the problem occurred because of a misunderstanding between the tower controller and departure controller. The traffic in question was an aircraft departing runway 7R. The tower controller had given the light aircraft instructions for takeoff and had not communicated those instructions to the departure controller. Consequently, the departure controller perceived a conflict between the light aircraft departing runway 7R and our aircraft departing runway 7L. Because of the potential threat of a midair collision the departure controller issued the instructions to us to take the evasive actions described above. Tower supervisor indicated that he reprimanded both tower and departure controllers and instructed them on proper procedures. He also stated to me that the 2 aircraft did not come close enough to classify the situation as a near midair collision.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON DEP CTLR ISSUES MD88 FLC EVASIVE MANEUVERS DUE TO NON COORD OF OTHER DEP OFF OF PARALLEL RWY.

Narrative: DEPARTED DAB WITH INITIAL CLRNC OF RWY HDG AND 5000 FT. HANDED OFF TO DEP CTL AND CHKED IN PASSING 1700 FT. CTL CALLED OUT TFC AND INSTRUCTED US TO IMMEDIATELY DSND TO 1500 FT AND TURN R. A FIRM CORRECTION BACK TO 1500 FT (MAX ALT ATTAINED 2000 FT) WAS ACCOMPLISHED AND A PROMPT 30 DEG BANK R TURN WAS INITIATED. AFTER CLR OF CONFLICT, I WAS TOLD TO CONTACT CTLR SUPVR FOR MORE INFO UPON REACHING DEST OF ATL. FLT PROCEEDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT TO ATL. IN CONVERSATION WITH TWR SUPVR, HE INDICATED THAT THE PROB OCCURRED BECAUSE OF A MISUNDERSTANDING BTWN THE TWR CTLR AND DEP CTLR. THE TFC IN QUESTION WAS AN ACFT DEPARTING RWY 7R. THE TWR CTLR HAD GIVEN THE LIGHT ACFT INSTRUCTIONS FOR TKOF AND HAD NOT COMMUNICATED THOSE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DEP CTLR. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEP CTLR PERCEIVED A CONFLICT BTWN THE LIGHT ACFT DEPARTING RWY 7R AND OUR ACFT DEPARTING RWY 7L. BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL THREAT OF A MIDAIR COLLISION THE DEP CTLR ISSUED THE INSTRUCTIONS TO US TO TAKE THE EVASIVE ACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE. TWR SUPVR INDICATED THAT HE REPRIMANDED BOTH TWR AND DEP CTLRS AND INSTRUCTED THEM ON PROPER PROCS. HE ALSO STATED TO ME THAT THE 2 ACFT DID NOT COME CLOSE ENOUGH TO CLASSIFY THE SIT AS A NMAC.

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.