Narrative:

Air carrier X on approach into msp on ILS 11L past OM tower asked to slow to approach speed. I told him we were at approach speed of 133 KTS and he cleared us to land. At 250 ft we sighted approach lights. At 100 ft we sighted runway. At flare for touchdown I called 'aircraft on runway.' at the other end of runway was fog. Aircraft lifted off as we touched down. Tower was called after landing and told us that legally the aircraft nosewheel was in air they considered it airborne. The options were very limited for us! If we went around with the condition we could not have kept aircraft in sight. We did not know which way he was turning and departures were also off right runway. A left turn out was not the missed approach procedure, and in a DC9-50 after flare, would have been interesting to bring power back to takeoff, because we would have touchdown before power was back and a rotation could occur. The tower should have alerted us to the fact a aircraft was on runway. In minimum WX conditions the spacing should be so you would not be concerned about an aircraft on other end of runway when it is not in visual sight with landing aircraft. If the situation had occurred in VFR we would have gone around. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was informed that the tower did not have standard separation for the WX conditions. Visual separation was not applied and could not be applied. Reporter stated if the controller had informed the flight crew about the company traffic departing prior to air carrier X landing the flight crew would not have been concerned. Reporter stated the company chief pilot was meeting with the tower manager about the spacing of aircraft at msp.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X HAD LTSS FROM ACR Y ON TKOF ROLL. SYS ERROR.

Narrative: ACR X ON APCH INTO MSP ON ILS 11L PAST OM TWR ASKED TO SLOW TO APCH SPD. I TOLD HIM WE WERE AT APCH SPD OF 133 KTS AND HE CLRED US TO LAND. AT 250 FT WE SIGHTED APCH LIGHTS. AT 100 FT WE SIGHTED RWY. AT FLARE FOR TOUCHDOWN I CALLED 'ACFT ON RWY.' AT THE OTHER END OF RWY WAS FOG. ACFT LIFTED OFF AS WE TOUCHED DOWN. TWR WAS CALLED AFTER LNDG AND TOLD US THAT LEGALLY THE ACFT NOSEWHEEL WAS IN AIR THEY CONSIDERED IT AIRBORNE. THE OPTIONS WERE VERY LIMITED FOR US! IF WE WENT AROUND WITH THE CONDITION WE COULD NOT HAVE KEPT ACFT IN SIGHT. WE DID NOT KNOW WHICH WAY HE WAS TURNING AND DEPS WERE ALSO OFF R RWY. A L TURN OUT WAS NOT THE MISSED APCH PROC, AND IN A DC9-50 AFTER FLARE, WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERESTING TO BRING PWR BACK TO TKOF, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TOUCHDOWN BEFORE PWR WAS BACK AND A ROTATION COULD OCCUR. THE TWR SHOULD HAVE ALERTED US TO THE FACT A ACFT WAS ON RWY. IN MINIMUM WX CONDITIONS THE SPACING SHOULD BE SO YOU WOULD NOT BE CONCERNED ABOUT AN ACFT ON OTHER END OF RWY WHEN IT IS NOT IN VISUAL SIGHT WITH LNDG ACFT. IF THE SIT HAD OCCURRED IN VFR WE WOULD HAVE GONE AROUND. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS INFORMED THAT THE TWR DID NOT HAVE STANDARD SEPARATION FOR THE WX CONDITIONS. VISUAL SEPARATION WAS NOT APPLIED AND COULD NOT BE APPLIED. RPTR STATED IF THE CTLR HAD INFORMED THE FLC ABOUT THE COMPANY TFC DEPARTING PRIOR TO ACR X LNDG THE FLC WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONCERNED. RPTR STATED THE COMPANY CHIEF PLT WAS MEETING WITH THE TWR MGR ABOUT THE SPACING OF ACFT AT MSP.

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.