Narrative:

On approach to runway 23L at rdu, we were 3 mi behind landing traffic ahead according to TCASII display. After traffic ahead touched down, a departing flight was cleared into position for takeoff. At about 500 ft AGL (1 1/2 mi out), the departing flight was cleared for immediate takeoff and was informed by tower that we were 1 1/2 mi out doing 120 KTS GS. Spacing looked tighter than I had ever seen. I informed tower that we would like to 'take it around.' tower response was 'no, continue, I think it will workout.' at about 100 ft the departing flight was progressing down the runway and tower cleared us for the option. I was concerned that a go around from this point might cause a traffic conflict with the flight departing ahead of us, or flts landing and departing 23R, or flts landing runway 32. It appeared that the safest option was to continue the landing. We were into the flare as the departing flight was rotating. Due to departure flts (large transport Y) black exhaust and distance down field, it was impossible to establish the exact instant that it broke ground. We may have inadvertently touched down an instant prior to departing flight breaking ground. After landing we were able to determine that no landing traffic was immediately behind us on approach and that the departing flight was the only flight to depart on 23L at that time. The departing flight had more room to takeoff after our landing. (Bad call by tower). Tower put us into a position that was unfamiliar to us, and limited our options. I think at that point, a fair amount of curiosity had arisen as to how the spacing would work out.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG FLC UNHAPPY WITH MIN SPACING BTWN HIS LNDG ACFT AND A DEPARTING LGT.

Narrative: ON APCH TO RWY 23L AT RDU, WE WERE 3 MI BEHIND LNDG TFC AHEAD ACCORDING TO TCASII DISPLAY. AFTER TFC AHEAD TOUCHED DOWN, A DEPARTING FLT WAS CLRED INTO POS FOR TKOF. AT ABOUT 500 FT AGL (1 1/2 MI OUT), THE DEPARTING FLT WAS CLRED FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF AND WAS INFORMED BY TWR THAT WE WERE 1 1/2 MI OUT DOING 120 KTS GS. SPACING LOOKED TIGHTER THAN I HAD EVER SEEN. I INFORMED TWR THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO 'TAKE IT AROUND.' TWR RESPONSE WAS 'NO, CONTINUE, I THINK IT WILL WORKOUT.' AT ABOUT 100 FT THE DEPARTING FLT WAS PROGRESSING DOWN THE RWY AND TWR CLRED US FOR THE OPTION. I WAS CONCERNED THAT A GAR FROM THIS POINT MIGHT CAUSE A TFC CONFLICT WITH THE FLT DEPARTING AHEAD OF US, OR FLTS LNDG AND DEPARTING 23R, OR FLTS LNDG RWY 32. IT APPEARED THAT THE SAFEST OPTION WAS TO CONTINUE THE LNDG. WE WERE INTO THE FLARE AS THE DEPARTING FLT WAS ROTATING. DUE TO DEP FLTS (LGT Y) BLACK EXHAUST AND DISTANCE DOWN FIELD, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH THE EXACT INSTANT THAT IT BROKE GND. WE MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY TOUCHED DOWN AN INSTANT PRIOR TO DEPARTING FLT BREAKING GND. AFTER LNDG WE WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT NO LNDG TFC WAS IMMEDIATELY BEHIND US ON APCH AND THAT THE DEPARTING FLT WAS THE ONLY FLT TO DEPART ON 23L AT THAT TIME. THE DEPARTING FLT HAD MORE ROOM TO TKOF AFTER OUR LNDG. (BAD CALL BY TWR). TWR PUT US INTO A POS THAT WAS UNFAMILIAR TO US, AND LIMITED OUR OPTIONS. I THINK AT THAT POINT, A FAIR AMOUNT OF CURIOSITY HAD ARISEN AS TO HOW THE SPACING WOULD WORK OUT.

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.