Narrative:

Approaching phl airport from the west in VMC, clear conditions on an IFR plan, was kept above 2500 ft AGL until over the airport, then handed off by approach control to phl tower (after being cleared for the visual approach to runway 35). Tower immediately cleared me to land runway 35, but asked that I 'keep it in close if possible.' I was now entering a right base leg to the runway approximately 1 mi from the threshold at approximately 2000 ft MSL/AGL. I was concerned about conflicting traffic, since intersecting runway operations were in effect (runway 27R was in use also), so I determined to follow the instruction to keep the traffic pattern in close. Despite the use of all drag devices available (speed brake spoilers, 25 degrees flaps, gear down, throttles idle, propellers full, increased RPM) I still approached the runway hot and very high. For some undetermined reason I did not elect to go around (as I should have), and upon touchdown full emergency braking was required to avoid running off the runway end. As it was, I came to a stop less than 3 ft short of the end lights! Pilot judgement here was poor - - I let the controller's request overpwr my authority as PIC. I clearly should have asked for a 360 degree descending turn in the pattern or at least have executed a go around. Pilot's should be cautioned not to let controller's requests dominate their judgement of operational safety -- if you can't do it, say no!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMT PLT ACCEPTS CLOSE IN VISUAL APCH AND AFTER A DESTABILIZED, HIGH APCH, STOPS JUST SHORT OF EXITING RWY END.

Narrative: APCHING PHL ARPT FROM THE W IN VMC, CLR CONDITIONS ON AN IFR PLAN, WAS KEPT ABOVE 2500 FT AGL UNTIL OVER THE ARPT, THEN HANDED OFF BY APCH CTL TO PHL TWR (AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 35). TWR IMMEDIATELY CLRED ME TO LAND RWY 35, BUT ASKED THAT I 'KEEP IT IN CLOSE IF POSSIBLE.' I WAS NOW ENTERING A R BASE LEG TO THE RWY APPROX 1 MI FROM THE THRESHOLD AT APPROX 2000 FT MSL/AGL. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CONFLICTING TFC, SINCE INTERSECTING RWY OPS WERE IN EFFECT (RWY 27R WAS IN USE ALSO), SO I DETERMINED TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION TO KEEP THE TFC PATTERN IN CLOSE. DESPITE THE USE OF ALL DRAG DEVICES AVAILABLE (SPD BRAKE SPOILERS, 25 DEGS FLAPS, GEAR DOWN, THROTTLES IDLE, PROPS FULL, INCREASED RPM) I STILL APCHED THE RWY HOT AND VERY HIGH. FOR SOME UNDETERMINED REASON I DID NOT ELECT TO GAR (AS I SHOULD HAVE), AND UPON TOUCHDOWN FULL EMER BRAKING WAS REQUIRED TO AVOID RUNNING OFF THE RWY END. AS IT WAS, I CAME TO A STOP LESS THAN 3 FT SHORT OF THE END LIGHTS! PLT JUDGEMENT HERE WAS POOR - - I LET THE CTLR'S REQUEST OVERPWR MY AUTHORITY AS PIC. I CLRLY SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR A 360 DEG DSNDING TURN IN THE PATTERN OR AT LEAST HAVE EXECUTED A GAR. PLT'S SHOULD BE CAUTIONED NOT TO LET CTLR'S REQUESTS DOMINATE THEIR JUDGEMENT OF OPERATIONAL SAFETY -- IF YOU CAN'T DO IT, SAY NO!

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