AN MLG CREW REFUSED A 'CANCEL TKOF' CLRNC AS THEY WERE PAST THE SPD THAT IT COULD BE SAFELY ACCOMPLISHED ON A SHORT; WET RWY AT LGA.

Narrative

LGA USING RWY 31 FOR DEP AND 22 FOR LNDGS. VISIBILITY GOOD BUT RWY WET. FO FLYING ACFT. TWR CLRED US FOR AN 'IMMEDIATE' TKOF TO WHICH WE RESPONDED THAT 'WE WERE ON THE ROLL.' AT SOME POINT WE HEARD TWR SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CANCEL A TKOF CLRNC BUT THEY WERE PARTIALLY CUT OUT AND NO URGENCY IN XMISSION. NEITHER OF US FELT THAT IT PERTAINED TO US. THEY THEN SAID CLRLY; 'FLT NUMBER; CANCEL TKOF CLRNC AND ADVISE IF YOU CAN HOLD SHORT OF RWY 22.' THE SPD WAS 110-120 KTS. I SAW THAT THERE WAS AN ACFT ON FINAL FOR 22 THAT WAS STILL 100-200 FT IN THE AIR AND WAS NO FACTOR. I IMMEDIATELY ADVISED 'NEGATIVE' AND ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE TKOF AS I WASN'T SURE THAT WE COULD STAY CLR OF FLUSHING BAY; MUCH LESS RWY 22. THE LNDG ACFT WAS ISSUED A GAR CLRNC. THERE WAS NO EVASIVE ACTION REQUIRED. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME IN 3 YRS THAT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS 'CANCEL TKOF CLRNC' AT A SPD AT WHICH A SUCCESSFUL ABORT WOULD BE DOUBTFUL. IN BOTH CASES THERE WERE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO ATC WHICH WOULD HAVE NEGATED THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH ACTION. THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY TO HANDLE THIS SITUATION. I BELIEVE THAT IN THIS CASE; THE CTLR WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH NOISE VIOLATION FROM THE GAR THAN OUR STOPPING ABILITY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 217619: I FEEL TWR HAD NO IDEA HOW FAST WE WERE GOING AND WHAT IT TAKES TO ABORT A TKOF AT HIGH SPDS. RWY WAS A LITTLE WET AND I FEEL THAT IF WE HAD TRIED TO ABORT; WE MAY NOT HAVE STOPPED ON THE RWY. GIVING A GAR IS MUCH SAFER TO AN ACFT ALREADY IN FLT WITH ALT THAN TO ABORT A TKOF AT HIGH SPD.