Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DFW.Tower, TX
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Please feel free to share this report with anyone you like.  Aircraft X departed Runway 18L on the PODDE4 departure.  Takeoff clearance was normal 'RNAV to LARRN Runway 18L Cleared for Takeoff.'  I was working the LAW position without much to do so I was able to watch both the ASDE-X monitor as well as scan outside the window.  Aircraft X drifted well east of Runway 18L before returning to its expected flight path (straight out) and I observed Aircraft Y slightly ahead of Aircraft X tracking straight out of Runway 17R.  I believe; but can't be sure; Aircraft Y was either a SOLDO or CLARE departure.  DFW's departure waiver requires that initial runway separation be maintained until radar separation is established.  This operation was not in compliance with the departure waiver.  There is no provision in the DFW SOP to allow Local controllers to use radar vectors to correct for this type of situation which happens quite frequently.  Approximately 20 minutes after the event I was able to advise the Supervisor that I suspected a possible loss of separation between these two aircraft; his response was to chuckle and walk away.  I doubt an MOR was completed.1.  RNAV off the ground procedures should be amended to include an immediate turn away from parallel traffic if they are going to be run independently as ours are.2.  Procedures similar to those used for simultaneous radar monitored ILS approaches should be developed for the departure area.  It makes no sense that on the arrival side:a) There is a maximum intercept heading to reduce the chance of overflight; b) A controller is monitoring the No Transgression Zone while monitoring the frequency the aircraft is on; c) Altitude separation is required until the parallel traffic is established on the localizer; d) All the previous is required for runways that are farther apart than the independent parallel departure runways; but on the departure side:a) there is no requirement for the parallel local controllers to stagger the departures by even a foot; b) the departures are on different local control frequencies until they are switched to different departure controllers (which happens when the aircraft are in their closest proximity to one another); c) While there is a requirement to maintain initial runway separation; there are no procedures to do so; the parallel locals are not required to provide visual separation until it is verified that the aircraft are established on their respective departure; d) With the STARS blue blob there is no way to accurately ensure that this separation is maintained.3.  Local procedures require the Local Controller to make sure the departure isn't turning toward the parallel departure before switching them to departure but this doesn't cover these drift cases.




Synopsis: DFW Local Assist reports of problem associated with departure procedures; separation of aircraft; and aircraft that drift off departure path.