Narrative:

Approaching runway 19L was given an in close go around for traffic on runway. I looked and did not see any aircraft on runway 19L. My first officer executed a go around. After pulling up the gear and flaps I looked up and saw another company aircraft off of runway 25R in my windscreen and called for a hard left turn. TCAS went off and tower called for a heading of 150 degrees. The aircraft taking off of runway 25R was what our go around was for. Tower never advised us to slow down or maneuver to create more time for crossing takeoff traffic and apparently there was a breakdown in tower between the 2 tower frequencys; thus having the aircraft off runway 26R taking off while we were landing; creating a meeting point for both of us over the intersection at around 800 ft. Our whole approach on the arrival into las was totally unsatisfactory with many bad radio xmissions; corrections; changes; etc. I even said to my first officer; why are we going to the runway 19's when everyone else is landing on runway 25L? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he thought it unusual that ATC vectored them for the visual approach for runway 19L when they were arriving from the east; and las was also using runways 25 for landing. They executed the go around as instructed; not realizing the conflict until the captain saw the departing aircraft. He then called for a hard turn to avoid the other aircraft; and tower simultaneously issued a heading change. The reporter feels that if they had been allowed to continue the approach to runway 19L; the conflict would not have occurred.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC ISSUED A B737-700 APPROACHING RWY 19L AT LAS A GO-AROUND FOR TFC. DURING GO-AROUND; FLT CREW PERFORMED EVASIVE TURN TO AVOID ACFT DEPARTING RWY 25R.

Narrative: APCHING RWY 19L WAS GIVEN AN IN CLOSE GAR FOR TFC ON RWY. I LOOKED AND DID NOT SEE ANY ACFT ON RWY 19L. MY FO EXECUTED A GAR. AFTER PULLING UP THE GEAR AND FLAPS I LOOKED UP AND SAW ANOTHER COMPANY ACFT OFF OF RWY 25R IN MY WINDSCREEN AND CALLED FOR A HARD L TURN. TCAS WENT OFF AND TWR CALLED FOR A HDG OF 150 DEGS. THE ACFT TAKING OFF OF RWY 25R WAS WHAT OUR GAR WAS FOR. TWR NEVER ADVISED US TO SLOW DOWN OR MANEUVER TO CREATE MORE TIME FOR XING TKOF TFC AND APPARENTLY THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN TWR BTWN THE 2 TWR FREQS; THUS HAVING THE ACFT OFF RWY 26R TAKING OFF WHILE WE WERE LNDG; CREATING A MEETING POINT FOR BOTH OF US OVER THE INTXN AT AROUND 800 FT. OUR WHOLE APCH ON THE ARR INTO LAS WAS TOTALLY UNSATISFACTORY WITH MANY BAD RADIO XMISSIONS; CORRECTIONS; CHANGES; ETC. I EVEN SAID TO MY FO; WHY ARE WE GOING TO THE RWY 19'S WHEN EVERYONE ELSE IS LNDG ON RWY 25L? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE THOUGHT IT UNUSUAL THAT ATC VECTORED THEM FOR THE VISUAL APCH FOR RWY 19L WHEN THEY WERE ARRIVING FROM THE E; AND LAS WAS ALSO USING RWYS 25 FOR LNDG. THEY EXECUTED THE GAR AS INSTRUCTED; NOT REALIZING THE CONFLICT UNTIL THE CAPT SAW THE DEPARTING ACFT. HE THEN CALLED FOR A HARD TURN TO AVOID THE OTHER ACFT; AND TWR SIMULTANEOUSLY ISSUED A HDG CHANGE. THE RPTR FEELS THAT IF THEY HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THE APCH TO RWY 19L; THE CONFLICT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.