FLC OF SUPER 80 IS CLRED TO LAND AS IS A BARON ON AN INTERSECTING RWY. ATIS INDICATES LAHSO OPS IN USE BUT CTLR DOES NOT USE THIS OPTION. FLC CONCERNED IN CASE A GAR BY EITHER ACFT IS NECESSARY.

Narrative

ON APCH TO RWY 24 AT BDL; TWR CLRED A BEECH BARON TO LAND ON RWY 33. THE BARON WAS STILL ON SHORT APCH WHEN WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. WE ASKED THE TWR IF THE BARON WAS INSTRUCTED TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 24. THE CTLR STATED NO; BUT THEN ADDED THAT THE BARON WOULD BE TURNING OFF PRIOR TO THE INTXN. WHEN WE WERE APPROX 200 FT THE BARON WAS JUST TOUCHING DOWN. PRIOR TO OUR TOUCHDOWN WE ENSURED THAT THE BARON HAD SLOWED TO TAXI SPD AND WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OUR ROLLOUT. OUR PROB AND CONCERN COMES IN THAT NEITHER ACFT WAS INSTRUCTED TO HOLD SHORT OF THE OTHER RWY AND LEGALLY HAD FULL LENGTH AVAILABLE. THE POTENTIAL FOR DISASTER IN THIS TYPE OF RWY OP IS ENORMOUS. A GAR BY EITHER ACFT; A SLIPPERY RWY OR JUST A DESIRE TO USE THE FULL LENGTH BY THE ACFT ON RWY 33 COULD EASILY LEAD TO BOTH ACFT MEETING AT THE INTXN AND COLLIDING. WHEN I CALLED THE TWR ON THE PHONE AT THE GATE HE STATED THAT THEIR OP IS TOTALLY LEGAL AND USES THE FAA TERM 'ANTICIPATED SEPARATION.' WE ASKED WHAT HE WOULD DO IF THE BARON HAD NOT TURNED OFF PRIOR TO THE INTXN AND HE SAID HE WOULD HAVE THEN INSTRUCTED US TO GAR; EVEN IF WE HAD ALREADY TOUCHED DOWN. ALTHOUGH THIS MAY BE LEGAL; IN RETROSPECT I WILL NEVER ACCEPT A CLRNC TO LAND ON AN INTERSECTING RWY AGAIN IF ANOTHER ACFT IS CLRED TO LAND ON THE OPPOSING RWY AND HAS NOT TOUCHED DOWN AND CLRING HIS RWY. ALTHOUGH THE ATIS STATED THAT LAHSO OP WAS IN EFFECT; THE CTLR; WHO WAS WORKING ALONE; WAS CERTAINLY NOT UTILIZING IT. THIS TYPE OF OP AT HARTFORD IS SETTING THE ARPT AND COMPANY OR SOME OTHER UNFORTUNATE CARRIER UP TO APPEAR IN THE NEWS AGAIN AND IT WILL NOT BE IN A FAVORABLE LIGHT. THIS OCCURRED AT XX34 LCL TIME AND TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF THE ACFT'S LIGHTS REQUIRED THE FO'S FULL ATTN.