Narrative:

Our sabreliner 65 was cleared to land on mke runway 19R. While rolling past taxiway M, we were instructed to turn right onto runway 25L and contact ground once on runway 25L. We started our after landing checklist and I switched to ground frequency. I looked down the runway and saw a single engine cessna off the departure end of runway 25L. I first thought it was a departing aircraft from runway 25L but realized it was an arriving aircraft preparing to flare onto runway 7R. I had the PF exit immediately onto taxiway east and radioed on ground frequency what we were doing. Getting no response, I returned to tower frequency and told him we were exiting the runway, and he asked 'why?' later, while talking on the phone with a woman at the tower, she explained that the controller had forgotten about the landing cessna. She continued to say since the tail of our aircraft cleared the runway a second prior to the other aircraft's wheels touching down, there was no loss of separation and they would just 'remind the controller of the rules.' that is absurd! The controllers were unaware of any conflict until we brought it to their attention. Had I not seen that plane and gotten out of the way, there most definitely would have been a near collision. Their insistence on not treating (and recording) it as a serious error is similar to the incident described in a recent issue of aviation week and space technology. There too, the FAA was reluctant to record the incident as a near miss or controller error. It seems that the FAA is more worried about keeping the separation numbers that appear on the news as low as possible, even if it means outright deceit.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LTT CPR FO OBSERVES SMA ACFT FLARING OUT ON RWY IN WHICH ATC HAS AUTH N265 TO TAXI. CPR FLC EXIT IMMEDIATELY AT APCHING TXWY. FO'S CONVERSATION WITH TWR SUPVR DOES NOT RESOLVE SIT. FO CONCERNED WITH FAA CREDIBILITY AND INTEGRITY, EXAMPLING RECENT PUBLICIZED INCIDENTS.

Narrative: OUR SABRELINER 65 WAS CLRED TO LAND ON MKE RWY 19R. WHILE ROLLING PAST TXWY M, WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO TURN R ONTO RWY 25L AND CONTACT GND ONCE ON RWY 25L. WE STARTED OUR AFTER LNDG CHKLIST AND I SWITCHED TO GND FREQ. I LOOKED DOWN THE RWY AND SAW A SINGLE ENG CESSNA OFF THE DEP END OF RWY 25L. I FIRST THOUGHT IT WAS A DEPARTING ACFT FROM RWY 25L BUT REALIZED IT WAS AN ARRIVING ACFT PREPARING TO FLARE ONTO RWY 7R. I HAD THE PF EXIT IMMEDIATELY ONTO TXWY E AND RADIOED ON GND FREQ WHAT WE WERE DOING. GETTING NO RESPONSE, I RETURNED TO TWR FREQ AND TOLD HIM WE WERE EXITING THE RWY, AND HE ASKED 'WHY?' LATER, WHILE TALKING ON THE PHONE WITH A WOMAN AT THE TWR, SHE EXPLAINED THAT THE CTLR HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE LNDG CESSNA. SHE CONTINUED TO SAY SINCE THE TAIL OF OUR ACFT CLRED THE RWY A SECOND PRIOR TO THE OTHER ACFT'S WHEELS TOUCHING DOWN, THERE WAS NO LOSS OF SEPARATION AND THEY WOULD JUST 'REMIND THE CTLR OF THE RULES.' THAT IS ABSURD! THE CTLRS WERE UNAWARE OF ANY CONFLICT UNTIL WE BROUGHT IT TO THEIR ATTN. HAD I NOT SEEN THAT PLANE AND GOTTEN OUT OF THE WAY, THERE MOST DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE BEEN A NEAR COLLISION. THEIR INSISTENCE ON NOT TREATING (AND RECORDING) IT AS A SERIOUS ERROR IS SIMILAR TO THE INCIDENT DESCRIBED IN A RECENT ISSUE OF AVIATION WK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY. THERE TOO, THE FAA WAS RELUCTANT TO RECORD THE INCIDENT AS A NEAR MISS OR CTLR ERROR. IT SEEMS THAT THE FAA IS MORE WORRIED ABOUT KEEPING THE SEPARATION NUMBERS THAT APPEAR ON THE NEWS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, EVEN IF IT MEANS OUTRIGHT DECEIT.

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.