Narrative:

Cleared for visual approach to runway 29 at oak behind a 737 approximately 1 mile inside mitoe. We were on a 4-mile right base; so we configured and slowed to maintain our distance and spacing. Contacting oak tower at mitoe; we were instructed; 'continue'. After the preceding 737 crossed the threshold; the tower gave clearance to a departing air carrier airplane to 'taxi into position and hold; traffic on a 3 mile final; be ready'. At this time; we were approximately 1200 ft; so we reselected landing flaps to 40 to further slow and help prevent a conflict. The tower couldn't issue takeoff clearance to the departing aircraft until the landing aircraft had cleared; and at this point the arrival aircraft had just touched down. The arriving aircraft cleared at Y; and the tower issued takeoff clearance to the departure. He then issued a landing clearance to us; which we feel was in error; as the departing aircraft had not even started his takeoff roll. The first officer asked; 'understand aircraft X cleared to land??' the tower responded with; 'cleared to land; you'll have sufficient separation'. The first officer responded with; 'I'm not familiar with that terminology'. The tower responded with 'you are cleared to land; traffic...is...airborne...now!' at this point; we were approximately 150-200 AGL; getting ready to go-around; planning the best escape route. I believe this was not compliant with the ATC handbook; 7110.65S; section 3-10-3 (2); which specifies: 3-10-3. Same runway separation a. Separate an arriving aircraft from another aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists or unless authorized in para 3-10-10; altitude restricted low approach. 2. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end. If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft is airborne; it need not have crossed the runway end if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists: (a) category I aircraft landing behind category I or ii- 3;000 feet. (B) category ii aircraft landing behind category I or ii- 4;500 feet. (C) when either is a category III aircraft- 6;000 feet. This situation was potentially hazardous and was unnecessary. There was no reason to clear the aircraft into position with us on a 3 mile final. There seems to be a culture of 'doing what it takes to not slow down this air carrier's operations' at the expense of safety.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier pilot described a near loss of separation during landing event; alleging controller failed to adhere to procedures and used poor planning to expedite departing aircraft while their aircraft was on a three mile final.

Narrative: Cleared for visual approach to Runway 29 at OAK behind a 737 approximately 1 mile inside MITOE. We were on a 4-mile right base; so we configured and slowed to maintain our distance and spacing. Contacting OAK Tower at MITOE; we were instructed; 'continue'. After the preceding 737 crossed the threshold; the tower gave clearance to a departing air carrier airplane to 'taxi into position and hold; traffic on a 3 mile final; be ready'. At this time; we were approximately 1200 FT; so we reselected landing flaps to 40 to further slow and help prevent a conflict. The Tower couldn't issue takeoff clearance to the departing aircraft until the landing aircraft had cleared; and at this point the arrival aircraft had just touched down. The arriving aircraft cleared at Y; and the Tower issued takeoff clearance to the departure. He then issued a landing clearance to us; which we feel was in error; as the departing aircraft had not even started his takeoff roll. The First Officer asked; 'Understand Aircraft X cleared to land??' The Tower responded with; 'Cleared to land; you'll have sufficient separation'. The First Officer responded with; 'I'm not familiar with that terminology'. The Tower responded with 'You are cleared to land; traffic...is...airborne...NOW!' At this point; we were approximately 150-200 AGL; getting ready to go-around; planning the best escape route. I believe this was not compliant with the ATC Handbook; 7110.65S; Section 3-10-3 (2); which specifies: 3-10-3. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION a. Separate an arriving aircraft from another aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists or unless authorized in Para 3-10-10; Altitude Restricted Low Approach. 2. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end. If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft is airborne; it need not have crossed the runway end if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists: (a) Category I aircraft landing behind Category I or II- 3;000 feet. (b) Category II aircraft landing behind Category I or II- 4;500 feet. (c) When either is a category III aircraft- 6;000 feet. This situation was potentially hazardous and was unnecessary. There was no reason to clear the aircraft into position with us on a 3 mile final. There seems to be a culture of 'doing what it takes to not slow down this air carrier's operations' at the expense of safety.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.