Narrative:

During the landing phase of an IFR flight plan, the subject pilot/aircraft was landing at a controled airport, on the active runway designated by approach control. At about 100' from the threshold, the tower informed the pilot of another aircraft landing and requested the pilot to keep up the speed. The pilot responded with, 'I'll try my best'. At that time, the subject pilot was unsure of the location of the landing aircraft, and did not request clarification due to preoccupation with landing the aircraft. Also, he was concerned with the performance of his brake system which had failed during a previous flight in the same aircraft. This failure was repaired and released for flight by a certified mechanic just prior to takeoff of the subject flight. As a result, the pilot did not land at a higher than normal landing speed in the event of pour brake performance. Fortunately the brakes worked well and the pilot instinctively turned off the active runway as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it was on the other crossing runway being used by aircraft Y. Fortunately there was sufficient separation between aircraft Y to avoid an incident (all under VFR conditions). Contributing factors: 1) tower controller's late notification of conflicting traffic, and 2) uncertain condition of the braking system on the subject aircraft. Corrective action for future avoidance: 1) pilot should have thoroughly tested the brakes before this flight, and 2) since the airport was not busy, the tower controller should have notified the subject pilot (cleared as #1 for landing) earlier in the approach phase of the potential landing conflict at the runway intxns.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT TURNED ONTO ACTIVE RWY WITH ACFT Y LNDG. PLT DEVIATION.

Narrative: DURING THE LNDG PHASE OF AN IFR FLT PLAN, THE SUBJECT PLT/ACFT WAS LNDG AT A CTLED ARPT, ON THE ACTIVE RWY DESIGNATED BY APCH CTL. AT ABOUT 100' FROM THE THRESHOLD, THE TWR INFORMED THE PLT OF ANOTHER ACFT LNDG AND REQUESTED THE PLT TO KEEP UP THE SPEED. THE PLT RESPONDED WITH, 'I'LL TRY MY BEST'. AT THAT TIME, THE SUBJECT PLT WAS UNSURE OF THE LOCATION OF THE LNDG ACFT, AND DID NOT REQUEST CLARIFICATION DUE TO PREOCCUPATION WITH LNDG THE ACFT. ALSO, HE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS BRAKE SYSTEM WHICH HAD FAILED DURING A PREVIOUS FLT IN THE SAME ACFT. THIS FAILURE WAS REPAIRED AND RELEASED FOR FLT BY A CERTIFIED MECHANIC JUST PRIOR TO TKOF OF THE SUBJECT FLT. AS A RESULT, THE PLT DID NOT LAND AT A HIGHER THAN NORMAL LNDG SPEED IN THE EVENT OF POUR BRAKE PERFORMANCE. FORTUNATELY THE BRAKES WORKED WELL AND THE PLT INSTINCTIVELY TURNED OFF THE ACTIVE RWY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS ON THE OTHER XING RWY BEING USED BY ACFT Y. FORTUNATELY THERE WAS SUFFICIENT SEPARATION BETWEEN ACFT Y TO AVOID AN INCIDENT (ALL UNDER VFR CONDITIONS). CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) TWR CTLR'S LATE NOTIFICATION OF CONFLICTING TFC, AND 2) UNCERTAIN CONDITION OF THE BRAKING SYSTEM ON THE SUBJECT ACFT. CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR FUTURE AVOIDANCE: 1) PLT SHOULD HAVE THOROUGHLY TESTED THE BRAKES BEFORE THIS FLT, AND 2) SINCE THE ARPT WAS NOT BUSY, THE TWR CTLR SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE SUBJECT PLT (CLRED AS #1 FOR LNDG) EARLIER IN THE APCH PHASE OF THE POTENTIAL LNDG CONFLICT AT THE RWY INTXNS.

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.