Narrative:

Air carrier X was inbound on the ILS approach to runway 19R at mke. We called tower at the OM as instructed by approach control, and tower cleared us to land. As we continued inbound the tower cleared a waiting air carrier Y jet for takeoff. Air carrier Y had been holding short of runway. When we were less than 2 mi from the runway, air carrier Y was just getting into position. At 1 mi out, air carrier Y was just pwring up and beginning to roll. We realized that air carrier Y could not possibly takeoff in time for us to land. We prepared to go around, and I advised tower that we were on short final. Tower immediately asked if we could land on runway 19L. We said yes and tower cleared us to side-step. By then we were about 300' off the ground and immediately side-stepped to the left side. We safely landed on runway 19L. We knew that it was not a good idea to side-step at that low altitude, but felt that we had no better alternative. We couldn't do a go around on the runway heading because that would have put us right on top of air carrier Y as he lifted off. We couldn't do a go around to the west because of the passenger terminal and the control tower. To the east there are bldgs and a smoke stack. We felt that the safest thing to do at that low altitude was to land on runway 19L as cleared. I feel that the main cause of this conflict was the tower clearing another aircraft for takeoff when we were well inside the OM. It should have been obvious that it would be extremely tight, at best. Even worse is the fact that I had to initiate a solution by reminding the tower that we were on short final. I feel that the tower should have done 2 things differently. 1) tower should not have cleared the other aircraft onto the runway when we were so close to landing. 2) tower should have recognized the conflict developing and reacted much sooner while there still options available.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X HAD LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION FROM ACR Y. SYSTEM ERROR.

Narrative: ACR X WAS INBND ON THE ILS APCH TO RWY 19R AT MKE. WE CALLED TWR AT THE OM AS INSTRUCTED BY APCH CTL, AND TWR CLRED US TO LAND. AS WE CONTINUED INBND THE TWR CLRED A WAITING ACR Y JET FOR TKOF. ACR Y HAD BEEN HOLDING SHORT OF RWY. WHEN WE WERE LESS THAN 2 MI FROM THE RWY, ACR Y WAS JUST GETTING INTO POS. AT 1 MI OUT, ACR Y WAS JUST PWRING UP AND BEGINNING TO ROLL. WE REALIZED THAT ACR Y COULD NOT POSSIBLY TKOF IN TIME FOR US TO LAND. WE PREPARED TO GO AROUND, AND I ADVISED TWR THAT WE WERE ON SHORT FINAL. TWR IMMEDIATELY ASKED IF WE COULD LAND ON RWY 19L. WE SAID YES AND TWR CLRED US TO SIDE-STEP. BY THEN WE WERE ABOUT 300' OFF THE GND AND IMMEDIATELY SIDE-STEPPED TO THE LEFT SIDE. WE SAFELY LANDED ON RWY 19L. WE KNEW THAT IT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO SIDE-STEP AT THAT LOW ALT, BUT FELT THAT WE HAD NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE. WE COULDN'T DO A GAR ON THE RWY HDG BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE PUT US RIGHT ON TOP OF ACR Y AS HE LIFTED OFF. WE COULDN'T DO A GAR TO THE W BECAUSE OF THE PAX TERMINAL AND THE CTL TWR. TO THE E THERE ARE BLDGS AND A SMOKE STACK. WE FELT THAT THE SAFEST THING TO DO AT THAT LOW ALT WAS TO LAND ON RWY 19L AS CLRED. I FEEL THAT THE MAIN CAUSE OF THIS CONFLICT WAS THE TWR CLRING ANOTHER ACFT FOR TKOF WHEN WE WERE WELL INSIDE THE OM. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS THAT IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY TIGHT, AT BEST. EVEN WORSE IS THE FACT THAT I HAD TO INITIATE A SOLUTION BY REMINDING THE TWR THAT WE WERE ON SHORT FINAL. I FEEL THAT THE TWR SHOULD HAVE DONE 2 THINGS DIFFERENTLY. 1) TWR SHOULD NOT HAVE CLRED THE OTHER ACFT ONTO THE RWY WHEN WE WERE SO CLOSE TO LNDG. 2) TWR SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THE CONFLICT DEVELOPING AND REACTED MUCH SOONER WHILE THERE STILL OPTIONS AVAILABLE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.