Narrative:

Upon cleared for the visual approach, we were switched to tower for runway assignment. Tower assigned us runway 3L and cleared us to land. Upon landing, tower requested us to hold short of runway 35 for landing traffic. We replied with unable and a different voice came over and said 'you can't stop in another 1000 ft?' we did not reply, but we were able to stop before runway 35 controllably. Landing traffic passed right in front of us and we stopped. Had we been unable to stop we certainly would have had a runway incursion or an aircraft incursion. Tower then cleared us across runway 35. I queried tower to why they did not issue lahso and they said they are not approved to issue lahso. However, their instructions are the same as lahso. We happened to brief that we would roll out to the end and use very little reverse and brakes due to our weight and the high outside air temperature. The tower's request is almost certainly more dangerous as we are in transition from a critical phase of flight and they are asking us to slam the brakes on. Had we landed long or carried extra airspeed we would have been unable to comply with the un briefed request. Tower's request was unprofessional, untimely, illegal, and did not allow for crew coordination on a normally briefed item as critical as lahso instructions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF MIL C130 WERE REQUESTED BY TWR TO HOLD SHORT DURING LNDG ROLL. THEY FIRST BELIEVED THEY COULD NOT, THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ABLE TO STOP IN TIME JUST AS ANOTHER LNDG ACFT ROLLED BY IN FRONT OF THEM.

Narrative: UPON CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH, WE WERE SWITCHED TO TWR FOR RWY ASSIGNMENT. TWR ASSIGNED US RWY 3L AND CLRED US TO LAND. UPON LNDG, TWR REQUESTED US TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 35 FOR LNDG TFC. WE REPLIED WITH UNABLE AND A DIFFERENT VOICE CAME OVER AND SAID 'YOU CAN'T STOP IN ANOTHER 1000 FT?' WE DID NOT REPLY, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO STOP BEFORE RWY 35 CONTROLLABLY. LNDG TFC PASSED RIGHT IN FRONT OF US AND WE STOPPED. HAD WE BEEN UNABLE TO STOP WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE HAD A RWY INCURSION OR AN ACFT INCURSION. TWR THEN CLRED US ACROSS RWY 35. I QUERIED TWR TO WHY THEY DID NOT ISSUE LAHSO AND THEY SAID THEY ARE NOT APPROVED TO ISSUE LAHSO. HOWEVER, THEIR INSTRUCTIONS ARE THE SAME AS LAHSO. WE HAPPENED TO BRIEF THAT WE WOULD ROLL OUT TO THE END AND USE VERY LITTLE REVERSE AND BRAKES DUE TO OUR WT AND THE HIGH OUTSIDE AIR TEMP. THE TWR'S REQUEST IS ALMOST CERTAINLY MORE DANGEROUS AS WE ARE IN TRANSITION FROM A CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT AND THEY ARE ASKING US TO SLAM THE BRAKES ON. HAD WE LANDED LONG OR CARRIED EXTRA AIRSPD WE WOULD HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE UN BRIEFED REQUEST. TWR'S REQUEST WAS UNPROFESSIONAL, UNTIMELY, ILLEGAL, AND DID NOT ALLOW FOR CREW COORD ON A NORMALLY BRIEFED ITEM AS CRITICAL AS LAHSO INSTRUCTIONS.

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.