Narrative:

Lax ATIS was reporting WX as 12 scattered, 21 broken, 2 1/2 plain fog 52/50 1707/30.14. Actual WX much lower ceiling, visibility was approximately as reported. Upon breaking out of the clouds just above minimums sighted an medium large transport Y on the runway just beginning his takeoff roll. Lax had cleared me to land when we checked in over FAF. As I was holding a correction right of the runway (due to crosswind also much stronger than reported) I elected to make a non standard go around. Missed approach procedure called for a turn to 020 degrees. If I had done that I would have flown either over the departing aircraft or we would have collided. I turned slightly more to the right and then attempted to parallel the runway in order to keep the departing medium large transport Y in sight. This was difficult due to WX conditions. We told lax tower we were going around and they told us to turn to 030 degrees. This would have initially placed both aircraft in the same airspace. I told my first officer to ask where the departing aircraft was before we would turn. Lax tower would not respond. As we were so close to the radar transmitter site I do not believe they knew. We did establish some sort of trust in the tower controller and followed their instruction for another normal approach and landing. Again, however, found the ceiling on final approach to be much lower than reported. Question: why was I cleared to land with another aircraft on the runway? He was still in the T/D zone when we pulled up along side. Why no update on the lax WX. Even 30 mins after our second approach and landing. Shouldn't the tower controller tell me he didn't know where we were in relation to the departing aircraft after we both entered the clouds. Supplemental information from acn 101313: the aircraft on the ground was within the T/D zone markings as we approached the runway threshold. At no time during the approach did the tower warn us of his presence. It was not apparent to the tower that there was a conflict. It was apparent to us that a conflict existed. The captain kept the aircraft on the ground insight as he called for missed approach. The tower directed us to turn left to 030 degrees, which would have put us on a possible collision course. The captain turned right until clear of the climbing aircraft, then we paralleled his course. As we climbed into the approximately 400' MSL cloud deck the other aircraft passed our altitude. We then turned left and followed ATC instructions. Conclusions: aircraft on ground may have inadvertently delayed his takeoff roll. Tower was unable to visually see pending conflict and margin of error for landing and departing aircraft was 0 in our case.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT MADE MISSED APCH AND GO AROUND DUE TO ACFT ON THE RWY, BUT DID NOT FOLLOW PUBLISHED MISSED APCH PROC OR TWR CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS. OPERATIONAL ERROR AND PLT DEVIATION.

Narrative: LAX ATIS WAS RPTING WX AS 12 SCATTERED, 21 BROKEN, 2 1/2 PLAIN FOG 52/50 1707/30.14. ACTUAL WX MUCH LOWER CEILING, VISIBILITY WAS APPROX AS RPTED. UPON BREAKING OUT OF THE CLOUDS JUST ABOVE MINIMUMS SIGHTED AN MLG Y ON THE RWY JUST BEGINNING HIS TKOF ROLL. LAX HAD CLRED ME TO LAND WHEN WE CHKED IN OVER FAF. AS I WAS HOLDING A CORRECTION RIGHT OF THE RWY (DUE TO XWIND ALSO MUCH STRONGER THAN RPTED) I ELECTED TO MAKE A NON STANDARD GAR. MISSED APCH PROC CALLED FOR A TURN TO 020 DEGS. IF I HAD DONE THAT I WOULD HAVE FLOWN EITHER OVER THE DEPARTING ACFT OR WE WOULD HAVE COLLIDED. I TURNED slightly MORE TO THE RIGHT AND THEN ATTEMPTED TO PARALLEL THE RWY IN ORDER TO KEEP THE DEPARTING MLG Y IN SIGHT. THIS WAS DIFFICULT DUE TO WX CONDITIONS. WE TOLD LAX TWR WE WERE GOING AROUND AND THEY TOLD US TO TURN TO 030 DEGS. THIS WOULD HAVE INITIALLY PLACED BOTH ACFT IN THE SAME AIRSPACE. I TOLD MY F/O TO ASK WHERE THE DEPARTING ACFT WAS BEFORE WE WOULD TURN. LAX TWR WOULD NOT RESPOND. AS WE WERE SO CLOSE TO THE RADAR XMITTER SITE I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY KNEW. WE DID ESTABLISH SOME SORT OF TRUST IN THE TWR CTLR AND FOLLOWED THEIR INSTRUCTION FOR ANOTHER NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. AGAIN, HOWEVER, FOUND THE CEILING ON FINAL APCH TO BE MUCH LOWER THAN RPTED. QUESTION: WHY WAS I CLRED TO LAND WITH ANOTHER ACFT ON THE RWY? HE WAS STILL IN THE T/D ZONE WHEN WE PULLED UP ALONG SIDE. WHY NO UPDATE ON THE LAX WX. EVEN 30 MINS AFTER OUR SECOND APCH AND LNDG. SHOULDN'T THE TWR CTLR TELL ME HE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE WE WERE IN RELATION TO THE DEPARTING ACFT AFTER WE BOTH ENTERED THE CLOUDS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 101313: THE ACFT ON THE GND WAS WITHIN THE T/D ZONE MARKINGS AS WE APCHED THE RWY THRESHOLD. AT NO TIME DURING THE APCH DID THE TWR WARN US OF HIS PRESENCE. IT WAS NOT APPARENT TO THE TWR THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT. IT WAS APPARENT TO US THAT A CONFLICT EXISTED. THE CAPT KEPT THE ACFT ON THE GND INSIGHT AS HE CALLED FOR MISSED APCH. THE TWR DIRECTED US TO TURN LEFT TO 030 DEGS, WHICH WOULD HAVE PUT US ON A POSSIBLE COLLISION COURSE. THE CAPT TURNED RIGHT UNTIL CLEAR OF THE CLBING ACFT, THEN WE PARALLELED HIS COURSE. AS WE CLBED INTO THE APPROX 400' MSL CLOUD DECK THE OTHER ACFT PASSED OUR ALT. WE THEN TURNED LEFT AND FOLLOWED ATC INSTRUCTIONS. CONCLUSIONS: ACFT ON GND MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY DELAYED HIS TKOF ROLL. TWR WAS UNABLE TO VISUALLY SEE PENDING CONFLICT AND MARGIN OF ERROR FOR LNDG AND DEPARTING ACFT WAS 0 IN OUR CASE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.