Flight crew of super 80 is cleared to land as is a baron on an intersecting runway. ATIS indicates l...

Attributes
ACN	381825
Time
Date	199710
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : bdl
State Reference	CT
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 200
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : bdl
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Super 80
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Baron 55/Cochise
Operating Under FAR Part	other : unknown
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	381825
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
ASRS Report	381826
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

On approach to runway 24 at bdl, tower cleared a beech baron to land on runway 33. The baron was still on short approach when we were cleared to land. We asked the tower if the baron was instructed to hold short of runway 24. The controller stated no, but then added that the baron would be turning off prior to the intersection. When we were approximately 200 ft the baron was just touching down. Prior to our touchdown we ensured that the baron had slowed to taxi speed and would not conflict with our rollout. Our problem and concern comes in that neither aircraft was instructed to hold short of the other runway and legally had full length available. The potential for disaster in this type of runway operation is enormous. A go around by either aircraft, a slippery runway or just a desire to use the full length by the aircraft on runway 33 could easily lead to both aircraft meeting at the intersection and colliding. When I called the tower on the phone at the gate he stated that their operation is totally legal and uses the FAA term 'anticipated separation.' we asked what he would do if the baron had not turned off prior to the intersection and he said he would have then instructed us to go around, even if we had already touched down. Although this may be legal, in retrospect I will never accept a clearance to land on an intersecting runway again if another aircraft is cleared to land on the opposing runway and has not touched down and clearing his runway. Although the ATIS stated that lahso operation was in effect, the controller, who was working alone, was certainly not utilizing it. This type of operation at hartford is setting the airport and company or some other unfortunate carrier up to appear in the news again and it will not be in a favorable light. This occurred at XX34 local time and trying to keep track of the aircraft's lights required the first officer's full attention.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF SUPER 80 IS CLRED TO LAND AS IS A BARON ON AN INTERSECTING RWY. ATIS INDICATES LAHSO OPS IN USE BUT CTLR DOES NOT USE THIS OPTION. FLC CONCERNED IN CASE A GAR BY EITHER ACFT IS NECESSARY.

Narrative: ON APCH TO RWY 24 AT BDL, TWR CLRED A BEECH BARON TO LAND ON RWY 33. THE BARON WAS STILL ON SHORT APCH WHEN WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. WE ASKED THE TWR IF THE BARON WAS INSTRUCTED TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 24. THE CTLR STATED NO, BUT THEN ADDED THAT THE BARON WOULD BE TURNING OFF PRIOR TO THE INTXN. WHEN WE WERE APPROX 200 FT THE BARON WAS JUST TOUCHING DOWN. PRIOR TO OUR TOUCHDOWN WE ENSURED THAT THE BARON HAD SLOWED TO TAXI SPD AND WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OUR ROLLOUT. OUR PROB AND CONCERN COMES IN THAT NEITHER ACFT WAS INSTRUCTED TO HOLD SHORT OF THE OTHER RWY AND LEGALLY HAD FULL LENGTH AVAILABLE. THE POTENTIAL FOR DISASTER IN THIS TYPE OF RWY OP IS ENORMOUS. A GAR BY EITHER ACFT, A SLIPPERY RWY OR JUST A DESIRE TO USE THE FULL LENGTH BY THE ACFT ON RWY 33 COULD EASILY LEAD TO BOTH ACFT MEETING AT THE INTXN AND COLLIDING. WHEN I CALLED THE TWR ON THE PHONE AT THE GATE HE STATED THAT THEIR OP IS TOTALLY LEGAL AND USES THE FAA TERM 'ANTICIPATED SEPARATION.' WE ASKED WHAT HE WOULD DO IF THE BARON HAD NOT TURNED OFF PRIOR TO THE INTXN AND HE SAID HE WOULD HAVE THEN INSTRUCTED US TO GAR, EVEN IF WE HAD ALREADY TOUCHED DOWN. ALTHOUGH THIS MAY BE LEGAL, IN RETROSPECT I WILL NEVER ACCEPT A CLRNC TO LAND ON AN INTERSECTING RWY AGAIN IF ANOTHER ACFT IS CLRED TO LAND ON THE OPPOSING RWY AND HAS NOT TOUCHED DOWN AND CLRING HIS RWY. ALTHOUGH THE ATIS STATED THAT LAHSO OP WAS IN EFFECT, THE CTLR, WHO WAS WORKING ALONE, WAS CERTAINLY NOT UTILIZING IT. THIS TYPE OF OP AT HARTFORD IS SETTING THE ARPT AND COMPANY OR SOME OTHER UNFORTUNATE CARRIER UP TO APPEAR IN THE NEWS AGAIN AND IT WILL NOT BE IN A FAVORABLE LIGHT. THIS OCCURRED AT XX34 LCL TIME AND TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF THE ACFT'S LIGHTS REQUIRED THE FO'S FULL ATTN.

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.

Flight crew of super 80 is cleared to land as is a baron on an intersecting runway. ATIS indicates lahso operations in use but controller does not use this option. Flight crew concerned in case a go around by either aircraft is necessary.