Narrative:

While in landing confign for landing runway 25R at xyz, tower controller asked if we would accept landing if C310 landed on intersecting runway 19L or runway 19R. Cessna indicated that it would hold short of runway 25R on landing. There is approximately 12000 ft of runway from approach end of runway 25R to intersection of runway 19L, so I figured there would be little conflict. I also knew that there was plenty of landing distance for cessna to land on runway 19L and hold short of runway 25R since I routinely do it on an A320. It was a busy time of flight with speed changes requested by ATC on final and I was also hand flying the airplane. We forgot that under present lahso rules we could not accept a GA aircraft landing on an intersecting runway with the intention of holding short of our landing runway. The tower controller must have had an idea that it might not be acceptable for us to accept such a situation, otherwise he would not have made a point in asking. I feel that we were trapped by him into accepting this situation. At the time, we thought it was safe and keep traffic moving for him.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR IS WORRIED ABOUT COMPANY POLICY AGAINST IT WHEN CTLR ADVISES THAT LIGHT ACFT IS LNDG TO HOLD SHORT ON INTERSECTING RWY.

Narrative: WHILE IN LNDG CONFIGN FOR LNDG RWY 25R AT XYZ, TWR CTLR ASKED IF WE WOULD ACCEPT LNDG IF C310 LANDED ON INTERSECTING RWY 19L OR RWY 19R. CESSNA INDICATED THAT IT WOULD HOLD SHORT OF RWY 25R ON LNDG. THERE IS APPROX 12000 FT OF RWY FROM APCH END OF RWY 25R TO INTXN OF RWY 19L, SO I FIGURED THERE WOULD BE LITTLE CONFLICT. I ALSO KNEW THAT THERE WAS PLENTY OF LNDG DISTANCE FOR CESSNA TO LAND ON RWY 19L AND HOLD SHORT OF RWY 25R SINCE I ROUTINELY DO IT ON AN A320. IT WAS A BUSY TIME OF FLT WITH SPD CHANGES REQUESTED BY ATC ON FINAL AND I WAS ALSO HAND FLYING THE AIRPLANE. WE FORGOT THAT UNDER PRESENT LAHSO RULES WE COULD NOT ACCEPT A GA ACFT LNDG ON AN INTERSECTING RWY WITH THE INTENTION OF HOLDING SHORT OF OUR LNDG RWY. THE TWR CTLR MUST HAVE HAD AN IDEA THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE ACCEPTABLE FOR US TO ACCEPT SUCH A SIT, OTHERWISE HE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A POINT IN ASKING. I FEEL THAT WE WERE TRAPPED BY HIM INTO ACCEPTING THIS SIT. AT THE TIME, WE THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE AND KEEP TFC MOVING FOR HIM.

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.