Narrative:

Right after calling for taxi; clt went into a ground stop; so we held at the gate for just over an hour before continuing to push. Ground stop lifted and we departed still with more than takeoff fuel on board. Enroute to clt we were slowed the entire route by ATC. We were told to expect hold; but it was never assigned. Instead; we were given several delaying vectors. We were monitoring weather; and visibility was going up and down. ATC informed us that clt was only accepting CAT I approaches to runway 36R; so there would be delays. We were continually monitoring fuel status and were fine for conditions. Upon arrival at clt; we were in a long line for 36R. We flew the ILS but had no contact at minimums and executed a missed approach; even though other aircraft were landing. What can I say; we hit minimums and had nothing in sight. At this point; we calculated that we had the fuel to make one more approach; execute a missed approach; and reach our first alternate; as long as we had no delays (even considering flap ad). We informed approach that we were minimum fuel and could not accept a lengthy approach. It did not appear to me that they gave us any special treatment; but we kept up with our fuel status and were ok. Upon the second approach; weather still reported as 002 overcast and 1/8 mile; with 1 mile surface visibility. ATC was reporting RVR ranging from 1;600 up to 3;600 and back. It was above minimums when we began the approach. On final; we heard the tower tell the aircraft two ahead of us that there was an aircraft holding on and departing the runway; and to expect landing clearance at 2 miles. We were incredulous that this was taking place under the conditions. I do not remember whether the aircraft ahead of us got a similar instruction; but we did. I am not positive we got the expect landing clearance at 2 miles; but there was a hold/departure right ahead of us. We were well inside the marker when this instruction was given; and we received landing clearance very close in. Upon reaching minimums; I got 'lights in sight' and announced 'continuing' then '100 ft; runway in sight' I pulled the power and looked up . . . At grass; the runway was a full wingspan to our left. Rather than executing a balked landing on a grass surface and possibly touching down; I made a very flat; wings-nearly-level side-step to the runway and just got the wings level at touchdown. The localizer was dead on throughout both approaches. I flew the approaches fully coupled until the go-around/runway in sight calls. I have no doubt that the preceding aircraft interfered with the localizer and caused the deviation. I do not recall that runway having an ILS critical safety area; and there may be a reason for it; but something caused this large error. I cannot believe that clt is allowed to/is allowing departures with weather this poor and with aircraft inside the marker; especially considering we were fuel critical at this time. I cannot imagine the result if there had been a stuck mike on the frequency with one aircraft waiting to depart and us on a 2 mile final; breaking out at 100 ft. This is a horrendous practice that should be stopped immediately. I know my narrative sounded more like it was going to be a fuel issue; but I included it because fuel was a consideration throughout. At the instant I had to decide whether to balk or side-step; I had the momentary flash whether fuel would be an issue if I went around; but was more concerned with the chance of touching down on grass. Suggestions; in my experience over the last few months; the ATC services at clt have been very poor. I have heard supervisors jump in many; many times to correct instructions. We are regularly flown through the localizer with parallel traffic nearby; and we are also frequently not cleared for the approach until we are above the glide slope. This newest wrinkle seems to be a very; very dangerous practice and I cannot believe that it is an approved practice. Departing aircraft off of a runway under low-visibility with arriving aircraft inside the marker is just plain dumb and should be discontinued immediately.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier landing at CLT expressed concern regarding ATC handling; noting landing clearance was withheld until inside the marker with minimal weather conditions; adding concerns regarding general ATC practices at CLT.

Narrative: Right after calling for taxi; CLT went into a ground stop; so we held at the gate for just over an hour before continuing to push. Ground stop lifted and we departed still with more than takeoff fuel on board. Enroute to CLT we were slowed the entire route by ATC. We were told to expect hold; but it was never assigned. Instead; we were given several delaying vectors. We were monitoring weather; and visibility was going up and down. ATC informed us that CLT was only accepting CAT I approaches to Runway 36R; so there would be delays. We were continually monitoring fuel status and were fine for conditions. Upon arrival at CLT; we were in a long line for 36R. We flew the ILS but had no contact at minimums and executed a missed approach; even though other aircraft were landing. What can I say; we hit minimums and had nothing in sight. At this point; we calculated that we had the fuel to make one more approach; execute a missed approach; and reach our first alternate; as long as we had no delays (even considering flap AD). We informed Approach that we were minimum fuel and could not accept a lengthy approach. It did not appear to me that they gave us any special treatment; but we kept up with our fuel status and were OK. Upon the second approach; weather still reported as 002 overcast and 1/8 mile; with 1 mile surface visibility. ATC was reporting RVR ranging from 1;600 up to 3;600 and back. It was above minimums when we began the approach. On final; we heard the Tower tell the aircraft two ahead of us that there was an aircraft holding on and departing the runway; and to expect landing clearance at 2 miles. We were incredulous that this was taking place under the conditions. I do not remember whether the aircraft ahead of us got a similar instruction; but we did. I am not positive we got the expect landing clearance at 2 miles; but there was a hold/departure right ahead of us. We were well inside the marker when this instruction was given; and we received landing clearance very close in. Upon reaching minimums; I got 'lights in sight' and announced 'continuing' then '100 FT; runway in sight' I pulled the power and looked up . . . at grass; the runway was a full wingspan to our left. Rather than executing a balked landing on a grass surface and possibly touching down; I made a very flat; wings-nearly-level side-step to the runway and just got the wings level at touchdown. The localizer was dead on throughout both approaches. I flew the approaches fully coupled until the go-around/runway in sight calls. I have no doubt that the preceding aircraft interfered with the localizer and caused the deviation. I do not recall that runway having an ILS critical safety area; and there may be a reason for it; but something caused this large error. I cannot believe that CLT is allowed to/is allowing departures with weather this poor and with aircraft inside the marker; especially considering we were fuel critical at this time. I cannot imagine the result if there had been a stuck mike on the frequency with one aircraft waiting to depart and us on a 2 mile final; breaking out at 100 FT. This is a horrendous practice that should be stopped immediately. I know my narrative sounded more like it was going to be a fuel issue; but I included it because fuel was a consideration throughout. At the instant I had to decide whether to balk or side-step; I had the momentary flash whether fuel would be an issue if I went around; but was more concerned with the chance of touching down on grass. Suggestions; in my experience over the last few months; the ATC services at CLT have been very poor. I have heard supervisors jump in many; many times to correct instructions. We are regularly flown through the localizer with parallel traffic nearby; and we are also frequently not cleared for the approach until we are above the glide slope. This newest wrinkle seems to be a very; very dangerous practice and I cannot believe that it is an approved practice. Departing aircraft off of a runway under low-visibility with arriving aircraft inside the marker is just plain dumb and should be discontinued immediately.

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.