Narrative:

Approaching the airport from the ssw, the WX was VMC, however, we were vectored by approach control to the east, north and northwest of the airport due to traffic. On a 3 mi final to runway 15, tower told us there was traffic on a right base to runway 19 and that he would pass to our 'right.' this was a little confusing, but since we were so low to the ground and about to land, we did not query any further. The confusion started on the landing rollout. We heard the tower clearing an airbus-A320 to land on our runway, and we thought he was approximately 2 mi behind us. Tower told us to expedite, exit the runway and to hold short of runway 1-19. I repeated this, and was sure he wanted us to expedite clear of the runway because of the A320 on our tail, however I later learned it was because he wanted to get us through the 1-19 intersection because the piper was on a short final. We exited runway 15 at the earliest possible time, but we could not use taxiway a because there was a cessna there. The next turn off was runway 1-19, which we took. The tower told us 'we were not following instructions' and wanted us to use a reverse high speed taxiway G that we were already past so we exited the runway on taxiway B. The piper elected to go around with plenty of room. My concern is 2-FOLD: first, ATC should not vector/clear aircraft to land on intersecting runways, even in VMC, without greater separation than what we had, about 1 SM. Second, complete clrncs, especially with the words 'expedite' should not be given on the landing rollout, as this is a critical phase of flight.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATR42 CREW WAS GIVEN CONFUSING RWY EXIT CLRNC AT BTV.

Narrative: APCHING THE ARPT FROM THE SSW, THE WX WAS VMC, HOWEVER, WE WERE VECTORED BY APCH CTL TO THE E, N AND NW OF THE ARPT DUE TO TFC. ON A 3 MI FINAL TO RWY 15, TWR TOLD US THERE WAS TFC ON A R BASE TO RWY 19 AND THAT HE WOULD PASS TO OUR 'R.' THIS WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT SINCE WE WERE SO LOW TO THE GND AND ABOUT TO LAND, WE DID NOT QUERY ANY FURTHER. THE CONFUSION STARTED ON THE LNDG ROLLOUT. WE HEARD THE TWR CLRING AN AIRBUS-A320 TO LAND ON OUR RWY, AND WE THOUGHT HE WAS APPROX 2 MI BEHIND US. TWR TOLD US TO EXPEDITE, EXIT THE RWY AND TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 1-19. I REPEATED THIS, AND WAS SURE HE WANTED US TO EXPEDITE CLR OF THE RWY BECAUSE OF THE A320 ON OUR TAIL, HOWEVER I LATER LEARNED IT WAS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO GET US THROUGH THE 1-19 INTXN BECAUSE THE PIPER WAS ON A SHORT FINAL. WE EXITED RWY 15 AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME, BUT WE COULD NOT USE TXWY A BECAUSE THERE WAS A CESSNA THERE. THE NEXT TURN OFF WAS RWY 1-19, WHICH WE TOOK. THE TWR TOLD US 'WE WERE NOT FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS' AND WANTED US TO USE A REVERSE HIGH SPD TXWY G THAT WE WERE ALREADY PAST SO WE EXITED THE RWY ON TXWY B. THE PIPER ELECTED TO GO AROUND WITH PLENTY OF ROOM. MY CONCERN IS 2-FOLD: FIRST, ATC SHOULD NOT VECTOR/CLR ACFT TO LAND ON INTERSECTING RWYS, EVEN IN VMC, WITHOUT GREATER SEPARATION THAN WHAT WE HAD, ABOUT 1 SM. SECOND, COMPLETE CLRNCS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE WORDS 'EXPEDITE' SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN ON THE LNDG ROLLOUT, AS THIS IS A CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT.

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.