Narrative:

I was first officer on flight, 8/88, from atl to chs. We were cleared for a visual to runway 15. At 4 mi, on final, we sighted and questioned the tower about an aircraft apparently approaching to land on the intersecting runway 21. Tower advised that the aircraft was cleared for a visual approach to runway 21 and would s-turn so as to land on runway 21, after we cleared the intersection of the 2 runways. At that point, it appeared to us that, even with s-turning, the crew would not be able to slow enough to space themselves properly to land on runway 21. We felt that they would discontinue their approach. After a normal landing, tower requested us to expedite through the runway 15/21 intersection, which we did. However air carrier B had continued to approximately 200' AGL and the runway 21 threshold prior to announcing and executing a missed approach. The jet passed approximately 500' behind and 200' above our flight. During taxi in, I commented to the chs ground controller that we had done our best to expedite through the intersection and that it had never looked like the spacing would work out for the visual. The controller commented: 'the spacing never looked good to us, either.' however, the tower never called for air carrier B to go around or suggested any other alternative such as a 360 degree turn for spacing. At the gate, we had several negative passenger comments about the proximity of the jet. We felt that the air carrier B crew exercised poor judgement in continuing their approach when it was absolutely clear that the spacing would be inadequate to complete a landing. Although the maneuver probably did not compromise safety of flight, it did unnecessarily cause concern among our passenger (and probably their's, also).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX ACR-LGT ON LNDG ROLL AND ACR-MLG ON SHORT FINAL TO CROSSING RWY.

Narrative: I WAS F/O ON FLT, 8/88, FROM ATL TO CHS. WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 15. AT 4 MI, ON FINAL, WE SIGHTED AND QUESTIONED THE TWR ABOUT AN ACFT APPARENTLY APCHING TO LAND ON THE INTERSECTING RWY 21. TWR ADVISED THAT THE ACFT WAS CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 21 AND WOULD S-TURN SO AS TO LAND ON RWY 21, AFTER WE CLRED THE INTXN OF THE 2 RWYS. AT THAT POINT, IT APPEARED TO US THAT, EVEN WITH S-TURNING, THE CREW WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SLOW ENOUGH TO SPACE THEMSELVES PROPERLY TO LAND ON RWY 21. WE FELT THAT THEY WOULD DISCONTINUE THEIR APCH. AFTER A NORMAL LNDG, TWR REQUESTED US TO EXPEDITE THROUGH THE RWY 15/21 INTXN, WHICH WE DID. HOWEVER ACR B HAD CONTINUED TO APPROX 200' AGL AND THE RWY 21 THRESHOLD PRIOR TO ANNOUNCING AND EXECUTING A MISSED APCH. THE JET PASSED APPROX 500' BEHIND AND 200' ABOVE OUR FLT. DURING TAXI IN, I COMMENTED TO THE CHS GND CTLR THAT WE HAD DONE OUR BEST TO EXPEDITE THROUGH THE INTXN AND THAT IT HAD NEVER LOOKED LIKE THE SPACING WOULD WORK OUT FOR THE VISUAL. THE CTLR COMMENTED: 'THE SPACING NEVER LOOKED GOOD TO US, EITHER.' HOWEVER, THE TWR NEVER CALLED FOR ACR B TO GO AROUND OR SUGGESTED ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE SUCH AS A 360 DEG TURN FOR SPACING. AT THE GATE, WE HAD SEVERAL NEGATIVE PAX COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROX OF THE JET. WE FELT THAT THE ACR B CREW EXERCISED POOR JUDGEMENT IN CONTINUING THEIR APCH WHEN IT WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE SPACING WOULD BE INADEQUATE TO COMPLETE A LNDG. ALTHOUGH THE MANEUVER PROBABLY DID NOT COMPROMISE SAFETY OF FLT, IT DID UNNECESSARILY CAUSE CONCERN AMONG OUR PAX (AND PROBABLY THEIR'S, ALSO).

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.