Narrative:

This report is to bring attention to the use of the de facto lahso at boston. In this event; boston tower cleared us to land on runway 27 and told us that another aircraft would be landing on an intersecting runway 22L. The phraseology seemed non-standard and was perhaps chosen to avoid mention of lahso. I chose to land only if the other aircraft had been given and acknowledged a turn off and taxi instruction prior to our touchdown. This happened approximately one to two seconds before our landing. This is to say we could not possibly have waited any longer before commencing a go-around. I believe this is a case of boston tower attempting to continue to move airplanes using what is essentially lahso without calling it that. I think this is well intentioned but inappropriate. I have not been trained in lahso and don't know the procedures in the event of; for example; a simultaneous go-around. Of course; the conservative choice would have been for me to go around; but I chose to operate on the principle that an aircraft on the runway that has accepted taxi instructions is not a landing aircraft; but a taxiing one. I didn't make this up myself; I had it spelled out on the radio to me by ATC; and I see it in use at several airports; including lga during day-to-day operations. Don't misunderstand; I have no idea if this is true in a legal sense. I just know it seems to be SOP and so I used it as a way to manage the situation without simply giving up and going around.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier landing Runway 27 at BOS voiced concern regarding ATC's 'de facto' use of LAHSO procedures without referring to them as LAHSO. The reporter noted the absence of formal LAHSO training as a concern.

Narrative: This report is to bring attention to the use of the De Facto LAHSO at Boston. In this event; Boston Tower cleared us to land on Runway 27 and told us that another aircraft would be landing on an intersecting Runway 22L. The phraseology seemed non-standard and was perhaps chosen to avoid mention of LAHSO. I chose to land only if the other aircraft had been given and acknowledged a turn off and taxi instruction prior to our touchdown. This happened approximately one to two seconds before our landing. This is to say we could not possibly have waited any longer before commencing a go-around. I believe this is a case of Boston Tower attempting to continue to move airplanes using what is essentially LAHSO without calling it that. I think this is well intentioned but inappropriate. I have not been trained in LAHSO and don't know the procedures in the event of; for example; a simultaneous go-around. Of course; the conservative choice would have been for me to go around; but I chose to operate on the principle that an aircraft on the runway that has accepted taxi instructions is not a landing aircraft; but a taxiing one. I didn't make this up myself; I had it spelled out on the radio to me by ATC; and I see it in use at several airports; including LGA during day-to-day operations. Don't misunderstand; I have no idea if this is true in a legal sense. I just know it seems to be SOP and so I used it as a way to manage the situation without simply giving up and going around.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.