Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cessna 206 was on a pre-coordinated photo mission on a VFR flight plan. His flight track was north/south northeast and southeast of the Airport. I knew this route had the potential to conflict with the SID X; or SID Y departures so I restricted Cessna 206 altitude to at or below 045. Normally most jet departures are at or above 050 at the crossing point. B737 departed on a SID X departure and was climbing slower than normal. I quoted traffic to Cessna 206; who responded 'Traffic in sight; we can maintain visual.' I responded that 'Visual separation is approved.' I then quoted the traffic to the B737 who said he was 'Looking.' Next the B737 said he was responding to an RA. He then said he had the traffic in sight and something to the effect of 'that's close.' Later the B737 again asked what that aircraft was doing and I advised him that he had reported him in sight and was maintaining visual separation. He did not seem happy. The thing that made this situation difficult are numerous. 1-The SID X Departure aircraft are in a climbing turn and the range of turn rates is completely variable. It is very difficult to issue a turn to avoid traffic for fear of making it worse. In this case; in my judgment; the best course of action was to do nothing; which would cause the B737 to go behind the Cessna 206. 2-The MVA in the area of the incident was 039; precluding me from stopping the B737 at an altitude below the Cessna 206. 3-The B737 climbed (and all departures vary) much slower than the normal expected climb rate of the B737 on the SID X. While this caught me a little off guard; due to reasons 1 and 2 above; my options were limited. I also didn't want to impose a turn on the Cessna 206; since I had already instructed them to maintain visual separation; and I didn't want to counter a move they may have been executing; thereby making the situation worse. The SID X and SID Y departures used to have a note to 'remain within 4 NM of the Airport' during the turnout. I have heard that this was removed due to noise complaints. Whatever the reason; this removal has led to a very unpredictable climb out path. If this cannot be resolved; then we should be more restrictive with approvals of photo missions in departure corridors.


Second narrative: While on the departure procedure of the SID X Departure; we came within one mile of a Cessna at our same altitude. While turning on the departure; we turned heading into the Cessna which appeared to be in level flight on the departure path. ATC advised us of the aircraft location. While looking for it; we received a TCAS RA. We executed the maneuver but came within one NM of the aircraft. We queried ATC why it was allowed to get so close to us. ATC said they were on a photo mission. ATC didn't seem to care. We told them they were very close. After passing the aircraft; we continued on the departure routing and onto our destination.


Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a conflict event between an Air Carrier departure and a photo mission aircraft that was maintaining visual separation; the reporter detailing the event with the options available.