Lahso

[PA31Ho]

Land And Hold Short Operations...

I am wanting to get opinions on what you all think about LAHSO. I am not very experienced when it comes to these operations, however it just does not see very safe. I feel that it may just be a matter of time before something bad enough happens where this whole LAHSO get's the boot. I haven't really looked that deep into it, however. Depending on the weather, I am not too sure I would want to accept a LAHSO... there is just something about two aircraft landing at the same time on intersecting runways...

Anybody?

 

[ElCid88]

I agree. The airlines that I have worked for don't allow it, and the corporate flight department that I am at now forbids LAHSOs in our Ops Manual. If you accept a LHASO you also accept what happens if something goes wrong. Consider what might happen if both aircraft decide to go-around at the same time. I think that your thoughts are correct in not doing them.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Here are some basics of LAHSO ops.

Student pilots not allowed to participate.

Minimum weather of 1,000’ and 3 miles.

Pilot must determine plane can land and stop within the published ALD found in the A/FD.

Pilot in command has final authority to accept or decline a LAHSO.

Exit first convenient taxiway before LAHSO point.

Does not preclude a rejected landing.

Must read back LAHSO clearance.

At some airports LAHSO points are represented by a row of inground pulsating white lights.

 

[PA31Ho]

I think we can all find that info in the books there Mr. 99% ATP. But in there anywhere do you see safety? That's what we are discussing... the safety of the issue, not whether or not you can legally do it. Appreciate your input though.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Personally, I'll accept them if I have enough margin...although the FAA's published margins generally aren't enough.

They do LAHSO at MSP on 30L to hold short of W8 taxiway for crossing traffic. It's over 8000 feet, IIRC. Plenty of room to deal with most any issues for the Hawker at our typical landing weights.

I could get myself current a couple of times in the Maule and still make that LAHSO

Fly safe!

David

 

[PA31Ho]

Very true... a good safety point is that a lot of pilots let ATC fly their aircraft for them. It's like they (we) feel obligated to do what they say, when in fact we can say waaaaaiiiiiiiit a minute.... I'm the PIC here.

I agree with what you said, basically know your own safety margins.

Amish RakeFight: Sorry about the previous post, I was a little buzzed the other night when I got home and responded. I still don't see what your point is though.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

I think we can all find that info in the books there Mr. 99% ATP. But in there anywhere do you see safety? That's what we are discussing... the safety of the issue, not whether or not you can legally do it. Appreciate your input though.

Unfortunately, I don't know what your level of knowledge is of LAHSO operations as you seem very concerned about accepting one. So I thought to include some of the main points associcate with these operations as a base to start from. Also, I suppose these terms are helpful to anyone else who may not have even heard the term. There are other people on this board who read to learn and may be unfamiliar with issues discussed.

Obivously, according to your comments you're way past these points.

You ask whether safety is addressed - the rules set forth in the AIM concerning LAHSO operational safety are dictated by the conditions that LAHSO are predicated upon. What I have included is a partial list of the main points associated with them. I guess you weren't able to see how these guidelines provide safety.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Amish RakeFight: Sorry about the previous post, I was a little buzzed the other night when I got home and responded. I still don't see what your point is though.

My point was to address the main points associated with LAHSO operations. These main points are how safety is theoretically built into the clearance. There are others on the board who might be interested in having the topic expanded to include what are some of the basic requirements of this particular clearance. As I mentioned before, these guidelines or requirements need to be met in order to accomplish the safe operation of LAHSO ops. They in fact to address the very concerns you have with accepting them. If you're uncomfortable participating or haven't accurately determined your landing roll at weight and distance remaining for a "truncated" runway, then don't accept it.

I'm sure with more confidence and experience you'll be more apt to accept them if they can help alleviate congestion. I'm not saying that they are entirely without added risk, but they can and are accomplished on a regular basis.

 

[PA31Ho]

the guys I flew with at the airlines did not accept them (especially if the plane they were trying to help out was Mesa)

 

[Gorilla]

It totally depends. How's that for ambiguous? In some cases, no problem. Landing South (17C) at DFW comes to mind. Here we have a Space Shuttle runway, and Taxiway B at the end. Arrivals who land 17L can really stack up to the East trying to taxi to the terminal. Why not help your buds from all the carriers by accepting the clearance?

OTOH a LAHSO clearance can attempt to take your 10,000' runway and turn it into a 7,000' runway so a 172 can taxi across at his leisure. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

 

[avbug]

I believe Amish Rakefight did address your question when the basic tenets of the LAHSO clearance were covered. Student pilots are barred from conducting LAHSO for safety reasons. The pilot always has the option of rejecting the clearance, for safety reasons. One can still execute a go-around at any time, for safety reasons. One must be sure, when accepting the clearance, one can get stopped for safety reasons. The weather must be adequate enough to conduct LAHSO for safety reasons. And the clearance must be read back just like a hold short clearance on the ground, you guessed it...for reasons of safety.

Many operators do not permit LAHSO. I've personally rejected LAHSO based on OpSpec limitations, and other times when I've been permitted and I've found conditions favorable, I've accepted the clearance.

I've flown a Cessna Caravan, dropping jumpers, when the pattern began at 18,000' over the runway and ended on the numbers with a LAHSO and a landing roll so short it would make a midget blush without difficulty. Conversely, on a blustery day with a wet runway and a higher approach speed in windshear, accepting a LAHSO may not be in my best interest and I may reject it. The conditions, type of operation, runway, traffic density, pilot proficiency, aircraft, and a host of other factors dictate when it is safe, and also when it is legal.

As we all know, what is safe may not be lega, but what is legal may not be safe. If it isn't both safe and legal, it shouldn't be happening.

 

[minitour]

OTOH a LAHSO clearance can attempt to take your 10,000' runway and turn it into a 7,000' runway so a 172 can taxi across at his leisure. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

I'll keep that in mind the next time they try to turn my 10,000' runway into a 7,000' runway so a lear can taxi across at his leisure too.

"Negative, bugsmasher 123 needs the full length"

-mini

 

[Gorilla]

I'll keep that in mind the next time they try to turn my 10,000' runway into a 7,000' runway so a lear can taxi across at his leisure too.

"Negative, bugsmasher 123 needs the full length"

-mini

I'm not trying to slam GA; I love light aircraft. You and I both know that concrete requirements are wildly different. If I'm putting along in my Grumman, I will do whatever is needed within safe bounds to expedite commercial jet traffic. Why should I make a jet that is burning 1,000 gallons per hour, flown by guys trying to make a profit, and carrying 50 to 300 people on a schedule, go around or do a 360? My 7GPH of MOGAS just doesn't cost me that much.

 

[minitour]

I'm not trying to slam GA; I love light aircraft.

I misunderstood you then.
I think it was the blanket statement of

OTOH a LAHSO clearance can attempt to take your 10,000' runway and turn it into a 7,000' runway so a 172 can taxi across at his leisure. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

that turned me off. I know as well as you that sometimes...yes...sometimes...the big guys don't even need 7,000' to stop. If your intent was that if you need 10,000' or if 7,000' is going to be close (ie have to do almost everything right) then by all means...take the full length, I'll sit and let my pax be awed at the sight of you rolling out through 50kts as you pass the intersection. But if you can take a shorter runway, please do. I've been a believer in karma lately...I scratch your back and eventually someone will be helping me out too.

JMHO

-mini

 

[G100driver]

the guys I flew with at the airlines did not accept them (especially if the plane they were trying to help out was Mesa)

I never accept them either and announce to ATC that we will not participate in LAHSO. That is, do not have someone LAHS in front of our runway.

I am in BUR too often while airplane are using 15 and 8. Yikes!!! Too many moron's out there and I do not know who to trust.

Slow things down, maybe. Ask me if I care.

 

[mdanno808]

I haven't been in or out of KLAS in a long time, but it used to scare the hell out of me that they had two different tower frequencies for the different runways.

 

[Seadogrun]

I never accept them either and announce to ATC that we will not participate in LAHSO. That is, do not have someone LAHS in front of our runway.

I am in BUR too often while airplane are using 15 and 8. Yikes!!! Too many moron's out there and I do not know who to trust.

Slow things down, maybe. Ask me if I care.

Is there any way to avoid aircraft LAHSO your runway when you are landing full length?

I understand the concerns of Lahso and runway incursions, but is there really any way to protect yourself from someone blowing through your runway? Refusing LAHSO only keeps you from needing to stop, which is fine, but won't protect someone elses poorly performed LAHSO from entering your runway.