Narrative:

Flight was cleared to land at sju. Flight was aligned with runway 10 but cleared to land on runway 8 even though another aircraft was slightly over the hold line at taxiway Y. Prior to finally accepting the landing clearance, the captain and first officer made repeated attempts to obtain landing clearance for runway 10 but the tower operator refused clearance to land runway 10 even though the runway was clear, longer, and the one we were lined up on anyway. Landing was therefore made on runway 8 and was without incident. It is not known to this reporter what, if any, reasons the tower operator had for refusing flight its choice of runway but it appeared to be an arbitrary decision. Landing was made on runway 8 without incident but landing clearance for that runway should not have been issued or accepted due to the other aircraft being over the hold line. There were fast moving rain showers close to the airport however, and the aircraft over the line did not present a hazard, so the captain went ahead and landed, that seeming to be the best and safest course of action. It should be noted that the other aircraft was over the hold line having been given and then canceled takeoff clearance, and had informed the tower operator of his position. Supplemental information from acn 318601: flight landed on runway 8 at sju with other aircraft across the hold line at taxiway Y. Tower authority/authorized landing. The tower operator should not have authority/authorized a landing to runway 8 and we should not have accepted the runway once the other aircraft reported the incursion of the runway environment. Numerous requests for runway 10 were not accepted. Fast moving rain showers approaching the airport from the south relevant factor in deciding to land and not go around for another approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT CLRED TO LAND WITH ACFT BEYOND HOLD LINE AT RWY INTXN.

Narrative: FLT WAS CLRED TO LAND AT SJU. FLT WAS ALIGNED WITH RWY 10 BUT CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 8 EVEN THOUGH ANOTHER ACFT WAS SLIGHTLY OVER THE HOLD LINE AT TXWY Y. PRIOR TO FINALLY ACCEPTING THE LNDG CLRNC, THE CAPT AND FO MADE REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN LNDG CLRNC FOR RWY 10 BUT THE TWR OPERATOR REFUSED CLRNC TO LAND RWY 10 EVEN THOUGH THE RWY WAS CLR, LONGER, AND THE ONE WE WERE LINED UP ON ANYWAY. LNDG WAS THEREFORE MADE ON RWY 8 AND WAS WITHOUT INCIDENT. IT IS NOT KNOWN TO THIS RPTR WHAT, IF ANY, REASONS THE TWR OPERATOR HAD FOR REFUSING FLT ITS CHOICE OF RWY BUT IT APPEARED TO BE AN ARBITRARY DECISION. LNDG WAS MADE ON RWY 8 WITHOUT INCIDENT BUT LNDG CLRNC FOR THAT RWY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED OR ACCEPTED DUE TO THE OTHER ACFT BEING OVER THE HOLD LINE. THERE WERE FAST MOVING RAIN SHOWERS CLOSE TO THE ARPT HOWEVER, AND THE ACFT OVER THE LINE DID NOT PRESENT A HAZARD, SO THE CAPT WENT AHEAD AND LANDED, THAT SEEMING TO BE THE BEST AND SAFEST COURSE OF ACTION. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE OTHER ACFT WAS OVER THE HOLD LINE HAVING BEEN GIVEN AND THEN CANCELED TKOF CLRNC, AND HAD INFORMED THE TWR OPERATOR OF HIS POS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 318601: FLT LANDED ON RWY 8 AT SJU WITH OTHER ACFT ACROSS THE HOLD LINE AT TXWY Y. TWR AUTH LNDG. THE TWR OPERATOR SHOULD NOT HAVE AUTH A LNDG TO RWY 8 AND WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE RWY ONCE THE OTHER ACFT RPTED THE INCURSION OF THE RWY ENVIRONMENT. NUMEROUS REQUESTS FOR RWY 10 WERE NOT ACCEPTED. FAST MOVING RAIN SHOWERS APCHING THE ARPT FROM THE S RELEVANT FACTOR IN DECIDING TO LAND AND NOT GAR FOR ANOTHER APCH.

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.