Narrative:

On arrival we were switched to runway 36C by ATC. After making a base turn we were cleared to intercept the localizer to runway 36C and then shortly thereafter cleared for a visual approach to the same runway. We had traffic in front of us with adequate separation. Upon crossing glasi we contacted clt tower. We were told traffic in front of us was landing and we were cleared to land with one departure in front of us. At this point there seemed to be plenty of separation to accommodate the rj that was in position on 36C to depart with no conflict. Clt tower then instructed two aircraft holding short of 36C down field to cross the runway and taxi to the ramp as we were crossing around 1;000 ft afe. ATC then instructed the rj on the runway waiting to depart to 'be ready for an immediate departure.' we prepared in the event we were told to execute a go around however tower cleared the waiting rj for 'immediate takeoff' as we were passing approximately 500 feet afl. At this point due to landing traffic to our left and right we deemed a go around with a turn to avoid departing traffic on our runway unsafe due to separation and elected to continue our approach. The departing rj broke ground on their takeoff as we were commencing our flare maneuver. We contacted clt tower via telephone after block in and were told that only 6;000 ft of runway separation was required; training was occurring at that time in the tower; and that they would look into it. While we may have had legal separation both the captain and I felt that we were uncomfortably close to the traffic in front of us with the safety margin greatly reduced in the event the rj departing the runway rejected takeoff.I believe that the training occurring in the tower at the time may have distracted or impaired the ability of the local controller to use the typical safety margins in separating arriving and departing traffic that we are accustomed to at clt.evaluating the situation after block in I concluded that if we expressed our separation concerns at a higher altitude with more time left before crossing the threshold to ATC we might have come to a better solution without coming so close to departing traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A320 First Officer believed the Local Controller at CLT excessively shrunk the margins between landings and takeoffs on their arrival. Controller training may have been a factor.

Narrative: On arrival we were switched to Runway 36C by ATC. After making a base turn we were cleared to intercept the localizer to Runway 36C and then shortly thereafter cleared for a visual approach to the same runway. We had traffic in front of us with adequate separation. Upon crossing GLASI we contacted CLT Tower. We were told traffic in front of us was landing and we were cleared to land with one departure in front of us. At this point there seemed to be plenty of separation to accommodate the RJ that was in position on 36C to depart with no conflict. CLT Tower then instructed two aircraft holding short of 36C down field to cross the runway and taxi to the ramp as we were crossing around 1;000 FT AFE. ATC then instructed the RJ on the runway waiting to depart to 'be ready for an immediate departure.' We prepared in the event we were told to execute a go around however Tower cleared the waiting RJ for 'immediate takeoff' as we were passing approximately 500 feet AFL. At this point due to landing traffic to our left and right we deemed a go around with a turn to avoid departing traffic on our runway unsafe due to separation and elected to continue our approach. The departing RJ broke ground on their takeoff as we were commencing our flare maneuver. We contacted CLT Tower via telephone after block in and were told that only 6;000 FT of runway separation was required; training was occurring at that time in the Tower; and that they would look into it. While we may have had legal separation both the Captain and I felt that we were uncomfortably close to the traffic in front of us with the safety margin greatly reduced in the event the RJ departing the runway rejected takeoff.I believe that the training occurring in the tower at the time may have distracted or impaired the ability of the Local Controller to use the typical safety margins in separating arriving and departing traffic that we are accustomed to at CLT.Evaluating the situation after block in I concluded that if we expressed our separation concerns at a higher altitude with more time left before crossing the threshold to ATC we might have come to a better solution without coming so close to departing traffic.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.