MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
I was the pilot flying and followed all standard company procedures during takeoff from Runway 9L shortly after a single engine aircraft had departed the same runway. The pilot of the single engine aircraft had turned crosswind on a north bound heading and seemed to be no factor for us. At approximately 700 or 800 FT of altitude after takeoff we received a TCAS alert. I immediately scanned outside with the intention of acquiring the previously departed airplane visually. A split second later; I saw on the TCAS that the aircraft I had believed to be the reason for the TA was not the reason at all. Another aircraft was showing on the TCAS in our exact location. Simultaneously; I received a Resolution Advisory (RA); I started an aggressive climb; and was called by Tower and told the position of the other aircraft (right side of our airplane). I maintained 160 knots and a nearly 5;000 FT per minute climb. I went through the originally assigned altitude of 2;000 FT up to 2;700 FT before being told by Departure Control to continue climb to 5;000 FT. I never had a visual on the airplane that caused our RA. I cannot say with complete certainty; but I believe that the aircraft that caused our RA had departed from Runway 9C. The close proximately of 9L to 9C makes this occurrence one that is likely to be repeated. We were unaware that any airplane had departed 9C or that any aircraft other than the one that had just taken off Runway 9L before us was in our departure path.
An air carrier First Officer reported receiving an RA from another aircraft shortly after takeoff on 9L at SFB. Reporter cited closely spaced runways and ATC technique as contributing factors.