Narrative:

We were arriving in sea and set up for an autoland during CAT ii operations with the RVR 1400. ATC would not assign a runway till we were with the final controller and after prompting they finally assigned runway 16L. ATIS was advertising ILS approaches to runway 16L and 16R with departure off runway 16C. At the FAF we contacted sea tower and they stated there would be a jet 'in position and holding' on our runway and we were not cleared to land. At about 1200 MSL the jet was cleared for takeoff and we were cleared to land. After the runway symbology came into view; at 300 ft above the touchdown zone; the hgs guidance cue stated jumping around as the jet flew through the ILS beam. We broke out at about 100 ft and landed. Having an aircraft holding on an active landing runway during CAT III operations with the approaching aircraft inside of the FAF is an invitation for trouble. The possibility of breaking out with an aircraft still on the runway or having an approach warn due to the interference created by the departing aircraft and missing the approach thus creating a separation clearance problem with the departing aircraft and the one on missed approach is just too great. The three runway concept in sea appears to be a flawed system and invitation for trouble. There needs to be a consistency with the instruction ATC issues and the ATIS. Runway 16L should only be used for takeoff if there is a performance issue not an appt trying to save a few seconds and having ATC accommodating them. There needs to be a consistency with the instruction ATC issues and the ATIS.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING CAT II LANDING OPERATIONS A B737 WAS ASSIGNED SEA RUNWAY 16L AT THE FAF WITH AN AIR CARRIER AIRCRAFT IN POSITION ON THAT RUNWAY. AT 1200 FT THE DEPARTING AIRCRAFT WAS CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF. AN ILS (GLIDE SLOPE) SIGNAL ANOMALY OCCURED.

Narrative: WE WERE ARRIVING IN SEA AND SET UP FOR AN AUTOLAND DURING CAT II OPERATIONS WITH THE RVR 1400. ATC WOULD NOT ASSIGN A RUNWAY TILL WE WERE WITH THE FINAL CONTROLLER AND AFTER PROMPTING THEY FINALLY ASSIGNED RWY 16L. ATIS WAS ADVERTISING ILS APPROACHES TO RWY 16L AND 16R WITH DEP OFF RWY 16C. AT THE FAF WE CONTACTED SEA TOWER AND THEY STATED THERE WOULD BE A JET 'IN POSITION AND HOLDING' ON OUR RWY AND WE WERE NOT CLEARED TO LAND. AT ABOUT 1200 MSL THE JET WAS CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF AND WE WERE CLEARED TO LAND. AFTER THE RWY SYMBOLOGY CAME INTO VIEW; AT 300 FT ABOVE THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE; THE HGS GUIDANCE CUE STATED JUMPING AROUND AS THE JET FLEW THROUGH THE ILS BEAM. WE BROKE OUT AT ABOUT 100 FT AND LANDED. HAVING AN ACFT HOLDING ON AN ACTIVE LANDING RWY DURING CAT III OPERATIONS WITH THE APPROACHING ACFT INSIDE OF THE FAF IS AN INVITATION FOR TROUBLE. THE POSSIBILITY OF BREAKING OUT WITH AN ACFT STILL ON THE RWY OR HAVING AN APPROACH WARN DUE TO THE INTERFERENCE CREATED BY THE DEPARTING ACFT AND MISSING THE APPROACH THUS CREATING A SEPARATION CLEARANCE PROBLEM WITH THE DEPARTING ACFT AND THE ONE ON MISSED APPROACH IS JUST TOO GREAT. THE THREE RWY CONCEPT IN SEA APPEARS TO BE A FLAWED SYSTEM AND INVITATION FOR TROUBLE. THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONSISTENCY WITH THE INSTRUCTION ATC ISSUES AND THE ATIS. RWY 16L SHOULD ONLY BE USED FOR TAKEOFF IF THERE IS A PERFORMANCE ISSUE NOT AN APPT TRYING TO SAVE A FEW SECONDS AND HAVING ATC ACCOMMODATING THEM. THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONSISTENCY WITH THE INSTRUCTION ATC ISSUES AND THE ATIS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.