Narrative:

On a flight from jfk airport to bdl we were cleared for a visual approach to runway 33. We were operating as a commuter flight and the captain was flying while I was performing PNF duties. After being changed to tower, we were cleared to land runway 33, hold short runway 24 and advised of the winds (260 degrees at 14 KTS). We discussed the winds and continued the approach. Although cleared for a visual approach, we had tuned the ILS and flew it down to the published decision ht. The captain is a very capable pilot and flew the ILS +/- 1/2 DOT and on our briefed airspds. Below 200 ft AGL the crosswind became very choppy, probably due to the high terrain and buildings upwind of us. Although we had discussed the crosswind, we were both surprised by the intensity of the turbulence. As we flared in the choppy air the airplane caught a gust and ballooned. We then bounced once and floated a little before settling onto the runway. We soon realized that we may be unable to hold short of runway 24. I told the tower we were unable to hold short of runway 24. At this point the captain felt we could have stopped, but it may have damaged the airplane (blown tires, damaged brakes, etc). We both had spotted the lear on runway 24 that had just landed. The lear appeared to have slowed to taxi speed and was still 2000-3000 ft from us. As we approached runway 24, the tower told us to turn left at taxiway J which is on the other side of runway 24. We took this as clearance to cross runway 24. The lear did not appear to be a threat so we let our plane roll across runway 24. I believe we could have stopped short of runway 24 if the lear had been a threat to us. In the future, I will be very cautious about accepting lahso clrncs. There are many unforeseen events that can lengthen the landing roll and risk a collision -- antilock brake failure, engine failure, idle stop release failure, flat tire, windshear, animal on the runway, FOD on the runway, etc. It is also difficult to judge distance remaining. There are no distance remaining signs or lights, and it can be difficult to distinguish runways from txwys at a distance. I need to mention that the available runway was well within our limits for conditions at the time. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states the captain called the tower and explained what had happened. Controller indicated they would be investigating the incident. He is not sure if ATC is blaming the flight crew or not. The flight crew also discussed the incident with union reps who stated they are uncomfortable with the current lahso criteria and there have been other incidents.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF SAAB 340 IS GIVEN LAHSO CLRNC WHEN LNDG AT BDL. A LEAR JET IS LNDG ON AN INTERSECTING RWY. A XWIND CONDITION EXISTED AND TURB WAS INTENSE. ACFT BALLOONED AND FLOATED THEN SETTLED BUT CLOSE ENOUGH TO MAKE A HOLD SHORT DIFFICULT. THE LEAR HAD LANDED AND SLOWED AND TWR SAID FOR THE SAAB TO TURN ON TXWY J WHICH WAS ACROSS THE INTXN.

Narrative: ON A FLT FROM JFK ARPT TO BDL WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 33. WE WERE OPERATING AS A COMMUTER FLT AND THE CAPT WAS FLYING WHILE I WAS PERFORMING PNF DUTIES. AFTER BEING CHANGED TO TWR, WE WERE CLRED TO LAND RWY 33, HOLD SHORT RWY 24 AND ADVISED OF THE WINDS (260 DEGS AT 14 KTS). WE DISCUSSED THE WINDS AND CONTINUED THE APCH. ALTHOUGH CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH, WE HAD TUNED THE ILS AND FLEW IT DOWN TO THE PUBLISHED DECISION HT. THE CAPT IS A VERY CAPABLE PLT AND FLEW THE ILS +/- 1/2 DOT AND ON OUR BRIEFED AIRSPDS. BELOW 200 FT AGL THE XWIND BECAME VERY CHOPPY, PROBABLY DUE TO THE HIGH TERRAIN AND BUILDINGS UPWIND OF US. ALTHOUGH WE HAD DISCUSSED THE XWIND, WE WERE BOTH SURPRISED BY THE INTENSITY OF THE TURB. AS WE FLARED IN THE CHOPPY AIR THE AIRPLANE CAUGHT A GUST AND BALLOONED. WE THEN BOUNCED ONCE AND FLOATED A LITTLE BEFORE SETTLING ONTO THE RWY. WE SOON REALIZED THAT WE MAY BE UNABLE TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 24. I TOLD THE TWR WE WERE UNABLE TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 24. AT THIS POINT THE CAPT FELT WE COULD HAVE STOPPED, BUT IT MAY HAVE DAMAGED THE AIRPLANE (BLOWN TIRES, DAMAGED BRAKES, ETC). WE BOTH HAD SPOTTED THE LEAR ON RWY 24 THAT HAD JUST LANDED. THE LEAR APPEARED TO HAVE SLOWED TO TAXI SPD AND WAS STILL 2000-3000 FT FROM US. AS WE APCHED RWY 24, THE TWR TOLD US TO TURN L AT TXWY J WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RWY 24. WE TOOK THIS AS CLRNC TO CROSS RWY 24. THE LEAR DID NOT APPEAR TO BE A THREAT SO WE LET OUR PLANE ROLL ACROSS RWY 24. I BELIEVE WE COULD HAVE STOPPED SHORT OF RWY 24 IF THE LEAR HAD BEEN A THREAT TO US. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT ACCEPTING LAHSO CLRNCS. THERE ARE MANY UNFORESEEN EVENTS THAT CAN LENGTHEN THE LNDG ROLL AND RISK A COLLISION -- ANTILOCK BRAKE FAILURE, ENG FAILURE, IDLE STOP RELEASE FAILURE, FLAT TIRE, WINDSHEAR, ANIMAL ON THE RWY, FOD ON THE RWY, ETC. IT IS ALSO DIFFICULT TO JUDGE DISTANCE REMAINING. THERE ARE NO DISTANCE REMAINING SIGNS OR LIGHTS, AND IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH RWYS FROM TXWYS AT A DISTANCE. I NEED TO MENTION THAT THE AVAILABLE RWY WAS WELL WITHIN OUR LIMITS FOR CONDITIONS AT THE TIME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THE CAPT CALLED THE TWR AND EXPLAINED WHAT HAD HAPPENED. CTLR INDICATED THEY WOULD BE INVESTIGATING THE INCIDENT. HE IS NOT SURE IF ATC IS BLAMING THE FLC OR NOT. THE FLC ALSO DISCUSSED THE INCIDENT WITH UNION REPS WHO STATED THEY ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE CURRENT LAHSO CRITERIA AND THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER INCIDENTS.

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.