Narrative:

I had been cleared to land on runway 24 at isp long island, ny. 'No lahso had been issued to me by the tower.' I landed and was continuing my rollout on runway 24 when the tower gave a takeoff clearance to a caravan on runway 28. The runways intersect at the end of runway 28 and around 500 ft from the end of runway 24. I was going to FBO which meant I would need to taxi across approximately 200 ft of the departure end of runway 28 before being clear of both runways. Just after crossing the hold short line on runway 24 and before reaching the runway 28 intersection, I noticed the caravan taking off from my left and applied the brakes to come to a full stop on runway 24 at the edge of runway 28. The caravan was airborne at around 30-40 ft above me having taken off from runway 28. I asked the tower for permission to continue taxiing. The tower gave it and told me not to stop on the active runway again. I taxied off the runway and contacted ground who gave me permission to taxi to FBO. I then asked ground if the end of runway 28 at the intersection of runway 24 was considered an inactive part of runway 28 and what I had done wrong in stopping. The ground controller said that there was no problem with what I had done and I had made a good call. He also said that the tower controller had issued the takeoff clearance to the caravan predicated on the fact that I would have been passed that intersection by the time the caravan would reach it. We then deplaned. To be sure, I rang the tower to discuss the situation and what I should do if the same situation should arise in the future. I was given clearance to land without a lahso clearance and, therefore, runway 24 and intercepting runways were clear for my aircraft. The controller should have delayed clearance on runway 28 until I had cleared runway 24. Given the same situation, I would do the same again and do all I could to hold short of runway 28 (the departing caravan's runway) and feel that this was the controller's misjudgement. If I had continued across runway 28 to the taxiway, it is clear that there would not have been any danger of collision as the caravan was above me, however, if the departing aircraft had an engine failure or decided to use all of runway 28 then a real chance of collision would have existed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE55 PLT LNDG ON RWY 24 AT THE SAME TIME ATC ISSUED A TKOF CLRNC TO C206 ON A XING RWY. BE55 PLT USES HVY BRAKING TO REMAIN CLR OF RWY.

Narrative: I HAD BEEN CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 24 AT ISP LONG ISLAND, NY. 'NO LAHSO HAD BEEN ISSUED TO ME BY THE TWR.' I LANDED AND WAS CONTINUING MY ROLLOUT ON RWY 24 WHEN THE TWR GAVE A TKOF CLRNC TO A CARAVAN ON RWY 28. THE RWYS INTERSECT AT THE END OF RWY 28 AND AROUND 500 FT FROM THE END OF RWY 24. I WAS GOING TO FBO WHICH MEANT I WOULD NEED TO TAXI ACROSS APPROX 200 FT OF THE DEP END OF RWY 28 BEFORE BEING CLR OF BOTH RWYS. JUST AFTER XING THE HOLD SHORT LINE ON RWY 24 AND BEFORE REACHING THE RWY 28 INTXN, I NOTICED THE CARAVAN TAKING OFF FROM MY L AND APPLIED THE BRAKES TO COME TO A FULL STOP ON RWY 24 AT THE EDGE OF RWY 28. THE CARAVAN WAS AIRBORNE AT AROUND 30-40 FT ABOVE ME HAVING TAKEN OFF FROM RWY 28. I ASKED THE TWR FOR PERMISSION TO CONTINUE TAXIING. THE TWR GAVE IT AND TOLD ME NOT TO STOP ON THE ACTIVE RWY AGAIN. I TAXIED OFF THE RWY AND CONTACTED GND WHO GAVE ME PERMISSION TO TAXI TO FBO. I THEN ASKED GND IF THE END OF RWY 28 AT THE INTXN OF RWY 24 WAS CONSIDERED AN INACTIVE PART OF RWY 28 AND WHAT I HAD DONE WRONG IN STOPPING. THE GND CTLR SAID THAT THERE WAS NO PROB WITH WHAT I HAD DONE AND I HAD MADE A GOOD CALL. HE ALSO SAID THAT THE TWR CTLR HAD ISSUED THE TKOF CLRNC TO THE CARAVAN PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED THAT INTXN BY THE TIME THE CARAVAN WOULD REACH IT. WE THEN DEPLANED. TO BE SURE, I RANG THE TWR TO DISCUSS THE SIT AND WHAT I SHOULD DO IF THE SAME SIT SHOULD ARISE IN THE FUTURE. I WAS GIVEN CLRNC TO LAND WITHOUT A LAHSO CLRNC AND, THEREFORE, RWY 24 AND INTERCEPTING RWYS WERE CLR FOR MY ACFT. THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE DELAYED CLRNC ON RWY 28 UNTIL I HAD CLRED RWY 24. GIVEN THE SAME SIT, I WOULD DO THE SAME AGAIN AND DO ALL I COULD TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 28 (THE DEPARTING CARAVAN'S RWY) AND FEEL THAT THIS WAS THE CTLR'S MISJUDGEMENT. IF I HAD CONTINUED ACROSS RWY 28 TO THE TXWY, IT IS CLR THAT THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY DANGER OF COLLISION AS THE CARAVAN WAS ABOVE ME, HOWEVER, IF THE DEPARTING ACFT HAD AN ENG FAILURE OR DECIDED TO USE ALL OF RWY 28 THEN A REAL CHANCE OF COLLISION WOULD HAVE EXISTED.

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.