LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION AND POTENTIAL CLOSE PROX AS 2 ACR STARTED TKOF ROLL SIMULTANEOUSLY ON INTERSECTING RWYS. ACR Y SAW X AND ABORTED TKOF WELL SHORT OF INTERSECTION. PLT DEVIATION AND OPERATIONAL ERROR.

Narrative

BACKGROUND: INTERSECTING RWYS; RWYS 10 AND 14 WITH ACFT IN POS BOTH RWYS. ACFT ON RWY 14 GIVEN TKOF CLRNC AND BOTH ACFT BEGAN TKOF ROLL. THE ACFT ON RWY 10 ABORTED HIS TKOF WHEN HE SAW US ROTATE AND BECAME AIRBORNE IN FRONT OF HIM. TWO FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT CAUSED THIS OCCURRENCE. FIRST; THE ACFT ON RWY 10 PROBABLY DID NOT KNOW THAT BOTH RWYS WERE IN USE FOR TKOF. AND SECOND; THE TWR CTLRS FAILURE TO USE THE PHRASEOLOGY IDENTIFYING THE ACFT ON DIFFERENT RWYS. IF THE CTLR HAD SAID; 'FLT XYZ CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 14;' IT MAY HAVE CUED THE PLT ON THE OTHER RWY THAT A TKOF WAS ABOUT TO OCCUR ON THE OTHER RWY. OR; IF HE HAD SAID; 'FLT XYZ ACFT HOLDING IN POS RWY 10; CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 14;' THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY DESCRIPTIVE COMMENTARY AND WOULD MOST PROBABLY HAVE CALLED ATTN TO THE FACT THAT BOTH RWYS WERE IN USE. ATC SHOULD DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AS STANDARD PROC THIS TYPE OF COMMENTARY. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND ATC TRNING FACS BEGIN THIS IMPLEMENTATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 96764: THE ARPT BLDG KEPT US FROM SEEING EACH OTHER. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 96406: AFTER ARRIVING AT THE DEP END OF RWY 10 WE CALLED READY FOR TKOF TO TWR. WE WERE TOLD TO TAXI INTO POS AND HOLD. NO ACFT IN FRONT; WE WERE #1. HOLDING IN POS WE HEARD CLRED FOR TKOF AND MY COPLT CONFIRMED OUR TRIP NUMBER 'ROLLING.' I PROCEEDED WITH TKOF THRUST AND STARTED MY TKOF ROLL. MY ATTN WAS OF COURSE MAINLY OUTSIDE AND I ALMOST IMMEDIATELY SAW ANOTHER ACFT LIFTING OFF FROM RWY 14. I IMMEDIATELY INITIATED A REJECTED TKOF AND CALLED THE ABORT TO TWR. I RECEIVED NO CALL TO ABORT FROM TWR UP TO THAT POINT. WE NOW UNDERSTAND THAT THE TKOF CLRNC WAS FOR THE OTHER ACFT ON RWY 14.