PLTDEV -- ACR A LANDED WITHOUT CLRNC RESULTING IN A GAR FOR ACR B ON AN INTERSECTING RWY.

Narrative

AFTER BEING VECTORED FOR VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27 (WITH LNDGS BEING MADE ON INTERSECTING RWY 18L) WITH A TURN FOR SPACING APCH CTL CLRED US TO LAND AND TO CONTACT THE TWR ON 119.5. I TUNED THE RADIO; MADE THE CALL AND THEN GOT CAUGHT UP IN THE LNDG CHKS AND CHKLISTS AND THAT THE TWR HAD NOT RESPONDED OR THAT THERE WAS NO NOISE AT ALL. BECAUSE RWY 27 WAS MUCH SHORTER THAN THE OTHER 2 RWYS WE DISCUSSED USING 45 DEG FLAPS INSTEAD OF 25 DEG AND THAT BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE TXWY JUST AFTER THE RWY 18L INTXN; AS WE WERE ON ROLLOUT WE NOTICED A MD-80 ON GAR ON RWY 18L. POSSIBLY DUE TO CONFLICT WITH OUR LNDG ON RWY 27. IF LANDINGS ON INTERSECTING RWYS THE DIRECTIONS AND SPACING SHOULD BE GIVEN EARLY ESPECIALLY IF ANY HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS ARE GIVEN IN ORDER FOR THE CONFLICTING ACFT TO LOCATE EACH OTHER AND MAKE TIMELY DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THE XING RWY OR ANY HOLD SHORT LNDG INSTRUCTIONS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 280591: AT NO TIME WERE WE HANDED OFF (WE ASSUME) TO TWR DUE TO TFC AND ON THE CTLR (LAND 27 HOLD SHORT OF RWY 18L). ADDITIONALLY; NO 'EXPECT TO LAND AND HOLD SHORT' CLRNCS WERE ISSUED BY APCH CTL. WE LANDED WITHOUT TALKING TO TWR AND REALIZED THIS WHEN WE SWITCHED TO GND CTL. IT IS THE FO'S AND MY BELIEF THAT A LNDG CLRNC FOR RWY 27 WAS IMPLIED BY THE APCH.