Narrative:

We were landing on runway 9 in cvg. I had touchdown of approximately 2000 ft down runway. Landing was uneventful. Another B757 was cleared to land on runway 18R and instructed to hold short of runway 9. The captain did not hear that clearance. As we were rolling down the runway after landing the captain noticed the other B757 rolling out on runway 18R. He felt that the B757 was not decelerating fast enough to make any turn off prior to the runway intersection. He took control of the aircraft and applied aggressive braking to stop the aircraft prior to the intersection of runway 9/27 and runway 18R/36L. I didn't know if he knew something I didn't so I didn't tell him that the other B757 was instructed to hold short of our runway. The other B757 did make the turn off prior to crossing our runway. There was no evasive action required. I believe that aircraft over 100000 pounds should not accept lahso clrncs in cvg due to the short landing distances required to avoid potential conflicts of lahso violations. For light aircraft, lahso in cvg is acceptable.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR B757 FLC SEES ANOTHER ACR'S B757 APCHING DURING SIMULTANEOUS LNDGS ON INTERSECTING RWYS. THE CAPT TAKES CTL OF THE ACFT FROM THE FO AND AGGRESSIVELY APPLIES THE BRAKES. THE OTHER B757 TURNS OFF PRIOR TO THE RWY'S INTXN.

Narrative: WE WERE LNDG ON RWY 9 IN CVG. I HAD TOUCHDOWN OF APPROX 2000 FT DOWN RWY. LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL. ANOTHER B757 WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 18R AND INSTRUCTED TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 9. THE CAPT DID NOT HEAR THAT CLRNC. AS WE WERE ROLLING DOWN THE RWY AFTER LNDG THE CAPT NOTICED THE OTHER B757 ROLLING OUT ON RWY 18R. HE FELT THAT THE B757 WAS NOT DECELERATING FAST ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY TURN OFF PRIOR TO THE RWY INTXN. HE TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT AND APPLIED AGGRESSIVE BRAKING TO STOP THE ACFT PRIOR TO THE INTXN OF RWY 9/27 AND RWY 18R/36L. I DIDN'T KNOW IF HE KNEW SOMETHING I DIDN'T SO I DIDN'T TELL HIM THAT THE OTHER B757 WAS INSTRUCTED TO HOLD SHORT OF OUR RWY. THE OTHER B757 DID MAKE THE TURN OFF PRIOR TO XING OUR RWY. THERE WAS NO EVASIVE ACTION REQUIRED. I BELIEVE THAT ACFT OVER 100000 LBS SHOULD NOT ACCEPT LAHSO CLRNCS IN CVG DUE TO THE SHORT LNDG DISTANCES REQUIRED TO AVOID POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF LAHSO VIOLATIONS. FOR LIGHT ACFT, LAHSO IN CVG IS ACCEPTABLE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.