Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
PHX takeoff Runway 25R flaps 5. CLEARANCE: MAXXO 2. CNX. [We were] cleared to 8;000 FT. Visual avoidance instructions with Airbus which took off ahead of us. [We had a] normal takeoff; handoff to Departure. We turned to heading 240 at 1;550 FT per the departure and were cleared to FL210 at around 4;500 FT by ATC. Airbus was in sight by First Officer; ahead and to our right after the turn to 240. We climbed at 200 KTS for a fast climb due to clearance to FL210 and no restriction. At 7;500 ATC changed altitude back to 8;000 FT. As we leveled and continued heading 240 as per the departure; ATC asked if we had the airbus in sight. First Officer had traffic but I had lost sight due to left turn to 240 and my position in the left seat. We had just reached the turn point (9 miles) to turn left to 140. First Officer heard ATC issue a turn to 120 for the Airbus. First Officer noticed the Airbus turning into us and we were surprised. We noticed a rapid closure and climbed over 8;000 to 8;300 and stopped making the turn to 140 to avoid. The Airbus reported us in sight to ATC and that we cleared at around 100 FT (exaggeration) vertical separation. The Airbus passed beneath us about 400 FT below. We returned to 8;000 FT after passing the Airbus. ATC never gave any additional instructions to either us or the Airbus. Why did the Airbus continue to turn into us after he reported us in sight? First Officer said the Airbus stopped his turn for a moment and then started again. [I] asked by ATC to call upon arrival. Spoke to ATC and he said it looked like we had started to turn to 140 heading prior to 9 DME fix per the departure. I assured him that we didn't initiate turn to 140 prior to the 9 DME fix. It may have looked like we started prior to that point as we maneuvered to avoid the Airbus but returned to our heading of 240 until 9 DME. He advised that we had cleared the Airbus by 0.6 miles and 400 FT and as he had complied with an RA he was required to submit the event for review. The Airbus climbed slower and at a faster speed which put him further away at 1;550 FT from departure end of runway before turn to 240. That put him to our right side when he turned left to 240. Our left turn to 240 at the same altitude (1;550 FT) was much closer to the departure end of the runway due to our climb rate at 200 KTS. ATC had us depart too soon after the Airbus to have the same departure routing and such different aircraft climb performance. Also; the new company procedure of turning the transponder to 'ATC ALT' on taxi out and then adding ANOTHER runway item of switching it to TA/RA is a task overload. The CE750 will not give an RA on the ground and the transponder may be selected to TA/RA and left that way during taxi. We had missed the switch to TA/RA upon entering the runway and didn't get a traffic alert once airborne.
There was an Airbus that departed before us and we were cleared for takeoff [Runway] 25R and maintain visual avoidance. The MAXXO 2 departure instructions were 258 heading to 1;550 FT; then left turn to 240 to the 9 DME off PXR; then a 140 heading for vectors; climb to 8;000 FT. As soon as we took the runway all the take off numbers dropped out; the Captain quickly got the number back; but that was a distraction for me as I did the runway items and I left the transponder in ATC ALT. We had a normal takeoff; at 1;550 we turned to 240 and were climbing at 200 KTS I lost sight of the Airbus in the turn to 240. ATC cleared us to FL210; while we were on the 240 heading. [I] then amended our altitude to go back to 8;000; as we went through 7;500 FT. We hit the 9 DME and started our turn to 140. The Captain started the turn a little early; but quickly corrected back no more than 10 degrees off heading. While in our turn ATC came on and asked; 'Are you in your turn;' I responded that we were in our turn to 140. While in our turn to 140 ATC came on and reported airbus traffic at 2 o'clock. I spotted the Airbus traffic at 2 o'clock; in a left turn and about 2 miles. I delayed about 5 seconds as the right wing lowered and confirmed that the Captain had the traffic in sight and reported airbus in sight to ATC. We were instructed to maintain visual separation. We had a parallel course with the airbus for a few seconds then the airbus started a left turn into us. A heading change assigned by ATC. In the turn the airbus crew reported us in sight; but continued their left turn into us. The Captain had to climb to 8;300 and the airbus passed 500 FT under us. Airbus crew reported that we passed 100 FT over them. A few seconds after the conflict; ATC asked if the Airbus had responded to the RA. He stated yes. Before being handed over to a next controller we were requested to copy down and number which we did.With the takeoff numbers dropping out we should have taxied off the runway and then reloaded them. We would not have been rushed and would not have missed the transponder on the checklist. It would help if the color was different between ATC ALT and TA/RA. Standby is in green which is easier to pick up when it is on. What I feel caused the conflict with the airbus was that we turned inside of the airbus on the departure do to our greater performance and when in that situation ATC should be given a heads up. More traffic vigilance should be given when turning inside of another aircraft on the same departure and transition. It would be a good idea to confirm with ATC what departure and transition the aircraft is on that takes off before you; so you can anticipate sooner if there is going to be a conflict. As soon as the Airbus turned into us we should have contacted ATC and start maneuvers to avoid the conflict.
CE750 flight crew departing PHX Runway 25R on the MAXXO 2 departure report a conflict with an Airbus departing the same runway on the same departure just before the CE750 departure. The very different performance characteristics of the two aircraft resulted in a conflict at 9 DME during the turn to 140 degrees.