Narrative:

I had been cleared to land runway 18 and was approximately 1/2 mi final. The cherokee six had exited runway 13 and tower/ground said 'taxi to FBO.' this would require the CH6 to cross runway 18 (per diagram). I didn't know where he was, as hangars blocked my view in that direction, but I was 1) contemplating going around, 2) having my concentration broken while landing on a 3000 ft long runway in gusty xwinds, 3) splitting my views to the runway and taxiway on my landing rollout. As it turned out, he was some distance from crossing runway 18 and didn't reach it until I had finished my rollout and done a 180 degree turn to go back to the north end. I called the tower and suggested that this methodology probably was legal but not so smart and they got very defensive. If I had been unfamiliar with the airport I never would have known it was a possible problem. The tower's reasoning was that he would have had to taxi at 90 KTS to be a factor to me. I would suggest that an aircraft should be cleared only to hold short of the runway, then cleared across when there was no possible conflict. In my opinion, they were ridding themselves of the need to further follow the progress of the CH6 and, in fact, may have forgotten about me altogether, as I had to call them on 1 mi final for landing clearance. I've read too many stories of runway incursions to feel comfortable with this modus operandi.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN EXPERIENCED C210 PLT, LNDG AT MFE, OVERHEARD THE TWR DIRECT AN ACFT ON AN INTERSECTING RWY TO CROSS IN FRONT OF THE RPTR WHEN WAS ON A HALF-MI FINAL.

Narrative: I HAD BEEN CLRED TO LAND RWY 18 AND WAS APPROX 1/2 MI FINAL. THE CHEROKEE SIX HAD EXITED RWY 13 AND TWR/GND SAID 'TAXI TO FBO.' THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE CH6 TO CROSS RWY 18 (PER DIAGRAM). I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE HE WAS, AS HANGARS BLOCKED MY VIEW IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT I WAS 1) CONTEMPLATING GOING AROUND, 2) HAVING MY CONCENTRATION BROKEN WHILE LNDG ON A 3000 FT LONG RWY IN GUSTY XWINDS, 3) SPLITTING MY VIEWS TO THE RWY AND TXWY ON MY LNDG ROLLOUT. AS IT TURNED OUT, HE WAS SOME DISTANCE FROM XING RWY 18 AND DIDN'T REACH IT UNTIL I HAD FINISHED MY ROLLOUT AND DONE A 180 DEG TURN TO GO BACK TO THE N END. I CALLED THE TWR AND SUGGESTED THAT THIS METHODOLOGY PROBABLY WAS LEGAL BUT NOT SO SMART AND THEY GOT VERY DEFENSIVE. IF I HAD BEEN UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT I NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN IT WAS A POSSIBLE PROB. THE TWR'S REASONING WAS THAT HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO TAXI AT 90 KTS TO BE A FACTOR TO ME. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AN ACFT SHOULD BE CLRED ONLY TO HOLD SHORT OF THE RWY, THEN CLRED ACROSS WHEN THERE WAS NO POSSIBLE CONFLICT. IN MY OPINION, THEY WERE RIDDING THEMSELVES OF THE NEED TO FURTHER FOLLOW THE PROGRESS OF THE CH6 AND, IN FACT, MAY HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT ME ALTOGETHER, AS I HAD TO CALL THEM ON 1 MI FINAL FOR LNDG CLRNC. I'VE READ TOO MANY STORIES OF RWY INCURSIONS TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS MODUS OPERANDI.

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.