Narrative:

We had been cleared for a visual approach to runway 8L and were flying the approach with ILS backup. As we approached 1000 ft AGL we were concerned about an aircraft on the runway that had not started its takeoff roll. We continued our approach with the other aircraft still in position on the runway. At approximately 300-400 ft AGL we felt it would not be possible for the other aircraft to be off the runway before our touchdown and elected to go around. I informed the tower we were going around. The tower canceled the takeoff clearance for the aircraft on the runway. I again informed the tower we were going around and asked for specific instructions (heading/altitude). I had asked for specific instructions in case there was possible traffic conflict. After my second request, the tower said fly runway heading, climb to 3000 ft. As we were climbing through approximately 1000 ft we noticed a light aircraft (single engine, probably cessna) crossing left to right at our altitude. Shortly after this we were given a vector to turn south and contact departure control. After being vectored for another approach and given a second landing clearance, I asked the tower if they were aware of the other aircraft. The response was 'yes, we knew about the other aircraft.' no other information was given. I am shocked the tower would give us instructions that put us in conflict with another aircraft they knew about and not advise us of the other aircraft. Other points to be considered: 1) if we had flown the ILS missed approach procedure, we almost certainly would have had a collision with the other aircraft. Any go around from runway 8L would cause traffic conflict. 2) a dangerous situation is created when aircraft are flying a left downwind to runway 4L while aircraft are landing on runway 8L. Any aircraft on a go around from runway 8L will be in conflict with aircraft in the traffic pattern for runway 4L. During busy periods, with aircraft landing on runway 8L every 1.5 - 2 mins, aircraft should not be in the pattern for runway 4L. 3) if the light aircraft had TCASII, the potential for a collision would have been greatly reduced. Supplemental information from acn 281117: this was a potentially dangerous situation but apparently the tower operator didn't care. If we had flown the instrument approach missed approach, it is possible that we could have hit the light aircraft. This is the second time in the last 3 months that a similar situation occurred on the same runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BTWN ACR X AND UGA Y RESULTING FROM THE FLC INITIATED GAR BY ACR X BECAUSE OF AN ACFT ON THE RWY.

Narrative: WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 8L AND WERE FLYING THE APCH WITH ILS BACKUP. AS WE APCHED 1000 FT AGL WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT AN ACFT ON THE RWY THAT HAD NOT STARTED ITS TKOF ROLL. WE CONTINUED OUR APCH WITH THE OTHER ACFT STILL IN POS ON THE RWY. AT APPROX 300-400 FT AGL WE FELT IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE OTHER ACFT TO BE OFF THE RWY BEFORE OUR TOUCHDOWN AND ELECTED TO GAR. I INFORMED THE TWR WE WERE GOING AROUND. THE TWR CANCELED THE TKOF CLRNC FOR THE ACFT ON THE RWY. I AGAIN INFORMED THE TWR WE WERE GOING AROUND AND ASKED FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS (HDG/ALT). I HAD ASKED FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS IN CASE THERE WAS POSSIBLE TFC CONFLICT. AFTER MY SECOND REQUEST, THE TWR SAID FLY RWY HDG, CLB TO 3000 FT. AS WE WERE CLBING THROUGH APPROX 1000 FT WE NOTICED A LIGHT ACFT (SINGLE ENG, PROBABLY CESSNA) XING L TO R AT OUR ALT. SHORTLY AFTER THIS WE WERE GIVEN A VECTOR TO TURN S AND CONTACT DEP CTL. AFTER BEING VECTORED FOR ANOTHER APCH AND GIVEN A SECOND LNDG CLRNC, I ASKED THE TWR IF THEY WERE AWARE OF THE OTHER ACFT. THE RESPONSE WAS 'YES, WE KNEW ABOUT THE OTHER ACFT.' NO OTHER INFO WAS GIVEN. I AM SHOCKED THE TWR WOULD GIVE US INSTRUCTIONS THAT PUT US IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ACFT THEY KNEW ABOUT AND NOT ADVISE US OF THE OTHER ACFT. OTHER POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) IF WE HAD FLOWN THE ILS MISSED APCH PROC, WE ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE HAD A COLLISION WITH THE OTHER ACFT. ANY GAR FROM RWY 8L WOULD CAUSE TFC CONFLICT. 2) A DANGEROUS SIT IS CREATED WHEN ACFT ARE FLYING A L DOWNWIND TO RWY 4L WHILE ACFT ARE LNDG ON RWY 8L. ANY ACFT ON A GAR FROM RWY 8L WILL BE IN CONFLICT WITH ACFT IN THE TFC PATTERN FOR RWY 4L. DURING BUSY PERIODS, WITH ACFT LNDG ON RWY 8L EVERY 1.5 - 2 MINS, ACFT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE PATTERN FOR RWY 4L. 3) IF THE LIGHT ACFT HAD TCASII, THE POTENTIAL FOR A COLLISION WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATLY REDUCED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 281117: THIS WAS A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SIT BUT APPARENTLY THE TWR OPERATOR DIDN'T CARE. IF WE HAD FLOWN THE INST APCH MISSED APCH, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD HAVE HIT THE LIGHT ACFT. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS THAT A SIMILAR SIT OCCURRED ON THE SAME RWY.

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.