Narrative:

During landing rollout (100 KTS) on runway 34, tower issued a clearance 'hold short runway 02, on runway 34.' I read the clearance back exactly as stated. Upon approaching taxiway Q -- still on runway 34, the controller, becoming agitated, asked if we were holding short of runway 02. I stated we were on runway 34 and still short of runway 02. The controller now clearly upset, stated we had crossed the hold short line 'a ways back' and now issued a clearance to cross runway 02. No conflict ever existed. The traffic landing on runway 02 had already exited at taxiway B and was on taxiway a and we had never even gotten to runway 02. I think the clearance issued was incorrect and poorly issued. If the controller wanted us to hold short of 'hs-1,' he should have stated so! It should have also been issued as a land and hold short clearance prior to landing! Not as a 'hold short of runway 02 on runway 34' during rollout. I also do not remember crossing the flashing white lights marking the hold short hs-1 point on runway 34. Perhaps they were not on, or not installed, I don't know. In any event, hs-1 doesn't appear to be clearly marked. Upon reflection of the whole event, I almost feel as if we were 'baited' to fail. The clearance was ambiguous at best, and issued 'late in the game.' the tone in the controller's voice was as if he was waiting for us to 'cross the line.' callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter recognized they had passed the hs-1 line, but thought they were well clear of runway 02 for landing traffic. The reporter had never heard the tower use their depicted hs-1 point in a landing clearance when holding on the runway was required.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING ROLLOUT RIC RWY 34, LCL CTLR ISSUES HOLD SHORT CLRNC RWY 02 FOR LNDG TFC TO SCHEDULED ACR. LCL CTLR QUESTIONS FLT CREW HOLDING POS ADVISING THEY PASSED HOLD SHORT LINE. FO BELIEVES CLRNC WAS INCORRECT AND IF HOLDING AT THE HS-1 POINT WAS REQUIRED, SO STATE.

Narrative: DURING LNDG ROLLOUT (100 KTS) ON RWY 34, TWR ISSUED A CLRNC 'HOLD SHORT RWY 02, ON RWY 34.' I READ THE CLRNC BACK EXACTLY AS STATED. UPON APCHING TXWY Q -- STILL ON RWY 34, THE CTLR, BECOMING AGITATED, ASKED IF WE WERE HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 02. I STATED WE WERE ON RWY 34 AND STILL SHORT OF RWY 02. THE CTLR NOW CLEARLY UPSET, STATED WE HAD CROSSED THE HOLD SHORT LINE 'A WAYS BACK' AND NOW ISSUED A CLRNC TO CROSS RWY 02. NO CONFLICT EVER EXISTED. THE TFC LNDG ON RWY 02 HAD ALREADY EXITED AT TXWY B AND WAS ON TXWY A AND WE HAD NEVER EVEN GOTTEN TO RWY 02. I THINK THE CLRNC ISSUED WAS INCORRECT AND POORLY ISSUED. IF THE CTLR WANTED US TO HOLD SHORT OF 'HS-1,' HE SHOULD HAVE STATED SO! IT SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN ISSUED AS A LAND AND HOLD SHORT CLRNC PRIOR TO LNDG! NOT AS A 'HOLD SHORT OF RWY 02 ON RWY 34' DURING ROLLOUT. I ALSO DO NOT REMEMBER XING THE FLASHING WHITE LIGHTS MARKING THE HOLD SHORT HS-1 POINT ON RWY 34. PERHAPS THEY WERE NOT ON, OR NOT INSTALLED, I DON'T KNOW. IN ANY EVENT, HS-1 DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE CLEARLY MARKED. UPON REFLECTION OF THE WHOLE EVENT, I ALMOST FEEL AS IF WE WERE 'BAITED' TO FAIL. THE CLRNC WAS AMBIGUOUS AT BEST, AND ISSUED 'LATE IN THE GAME.' THE TONE IN THE CTLR'S VOICE WAS AS IF HE WAS WAITING FOR US TO 'CROSS THE LINE.' CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR RECOGNIZED THEY HAD PASSED THE HS-1 LINE, BUT THOUGHT THEY WERE WELL CLR OF RWY 02 FOR LNDG TFC. THE RPTR HAD NEVER HEARD THE TWR USE THEIR DEPICTED HS-1 POINT IN A LNDG CLRNC WHEN HOLDING ON THE RWY WAS REQUIRED.

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.