MLG ACR CREW IS REQUESTED TO HOLD SHORT OF A XING RWY.

Narrative

OUR ACFT WAS CLRED FOR AN ILS APCH RWY 5 BY TRACON AND SUBSEQUENTLY LNDG BY LCL CTLR. ON ROLLOUT; CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE ABLE TO HOLD SHORT OF AN INTERSECTING RWY. THIS REQUEST CAME AS WE WERE DECELERATING THROUGH ABOUT 70 KIAS. CAPT USED MODERATE BRAKING TO HOLD SHORT OF INTERSECTING RWY WHILE ADVISING FO TO ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. AT THIS POINT; FO LOOKED TO HIS R AND SAW A PA31 ON VERY SHORT FINAL TO THE INTERSECTING RWY. NEITHER PLT SAW THIS ACFT PRIOR TO THIS TIME. THE PA31 CROSSED THE INTXN IN HIS LNDG FLARE LESS THAN 15 SECONDS AFTER WE STOPPED SHORT OF IT. OUR LNDG CLRNC DID NOT INCLUDE A LAHSO CLRNC. AFTER DEPLANING PAX; CAPT CONTACTED THE CTL TWR BY TELEPHONE TO DISCUSS THE INCIDENT. THE SUPVR THERE STATED THAT CTLRS NOW HAD A DIRECTIVE NOT TO ISSUE LAHSO CLRNCS AND THAT THEY NOW REQUEST LNDG ACFT TO HOLD SHORT AFTER TOUCHDOWN. HE SAID THAT THE LCL CTLR WOULD HAVE ISSUED A GAR TO THE PA31 IF WE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO STOP BEFORE THE INTXN. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE LCL CTLR HAD A BETTER VIEW OF THE DEVELOPING SIT THAN WE DID. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT CTLRS SHOULD HAVE WIDE JUDGEMENTAL LATITUDE TO SEPARATE ACFT AND MOVE TFC EFFICIENTLY. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT AN ATC PROC OF REQUESTING AN ACFT STILL AT SPD ON THE LNDG ROLLOUT TO HOLD SHORT OF AN INTXN HAS A HIGH POTENTIAL FOR DISASTER.