SMT PLT ACCEPTS CLOSE IN VISUAL APCH AND AFTER A DESTABILIZED; HIGH APCH; STOPS JUST SHORT OF EXITING RWY END.

Narrative

APCHING PHL ARPT FROM THE W IN VMC; CLR CONDITIONS ON AN IFR PLAN; WAS KEPT ABOVE 2500 FT AGL UNTIL OVER THE ARPT; THEN HANDED OFF BY APCH CTL TO PHL TWR (AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 35). TWR IMMEDIATELY CLRED ME TO LAND RWY 35; BUT ASKED THAT I 'KEEP IT IN CLOSE IF POSSIBLE.' I WAS NOW ENTERING A R BASE LEG TO THE RWY APPROX 1 MI FROM THE THRESHOLD AT APPROX 2000 FT MSL/AGL. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CONFLICTING TFC; SINCE INTERSECTING RWY OPS WERE IN EFFECT (RWY 27R WAS IN USE ALSO); SO I DETERMINED TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION TO KEEP THE TFC PATTERN IN CLOSE. DESPITE THE USE OF ALL DRAG DEVICES AVAILABLE (SPD BRAKE SPOILERS; 25 DEGS FLAPS; GEAR DOWN; THROTTLES IDLE; PROPS FULL; INCREASED RPM) I STILL APCHED THE RWY HOT AND VERY HIGH. FOR SOME UNDETERMINED REASON I DID NOT ELECT TO GAR (AS I SHOULD HAVE); AND UPON TOUCHDOWN FULL EMER BRAKING WAS REQUIRED TO AVOID RUNNING OFF THE RWY END. AS IT WAS; I CAME TO A STOP LESS THAN 3 FT SHORT OF THE END LIGHTS! PLT JUDGEMENT HERE WAS POOR - - I LET THE CTLR'S REQUEST OVERPWR MY AUTHORITY AS PIC. I CLRLY SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR A 360 DEG DSNDING TURN IN THE PATTERN OR AT LEAST HAVE EXECUTED A GAR. PLT'S SHOULD BE CAUTIONED NOT TO LET CTLR'S REQUESTS DOMINATE THEIR JUDGEMENT OF OPERATIONAL SAFETY -- IF YOU CAN'T DO IT; SAY NO!