On touchdown...turns into LAHSO

[EatSleepFly]

Hey mini- do you fly out of AmAir?

 

[minitour]

Hey mini- do you fly out of AmAir?

Nope...I'm out in Okla-freakin-homa at OUN

-mini

 

[421Driver]

YNG, ahh, go to the mexican joint attached to the Quality Inn (I think) just under the freeway west of the airport. Great food.

 

[Vector4fun]

Two comments regarding the original post, and I have no idea whether they actually apply to the situation in question, just observations of common mis-understandings...

AIM 4-3-20. Exiting the Runway After Landing

The following procedures should be followed after landing and reaching taxi speed.

a. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. Pilots shall not exit the landing runway onto another runway unless authorized by ATC. At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval.

Most of our 121/135 operators are very good about asking if it's OK to roll to the end or make a long landing. A few think they "own" the whole runway every landing. The taxpayers own the runway, and ATC tries to make the most efficient use of it. With regard to the above quote, ATC has every reason to expect the pilot to exit the first practical taxiway.

Second comment. I never use LAHSO. However, I have often asked a pilot rolling out if they could hold short of a taxiway or intersection ahead. I try to use a certain amount of judgement, and wait until the aircraft looks to be at a reasonable speed before asking. I also always have a plan "B" should the pilot say "Unable". I don't see where the problem is in asking. Telling a pilot rolling out to hold short shouldn't happen unless it's very obvious that the aircraft has slowed to taxi speed and should absolutely have no problem doing so. I'd still have a plan "B" or "C" in mind.

 

[HiFlyChick]

I had this happen to me going into Norfolk Int'l a while back, only I was still in the air planning to land long when I first got an inkling that I was to hold short - I was pretty darned annoyed. Tower cleared me to land, then said that my traffic was at my 2 o'clock, which I found to be an odd statement considering I was on short final. I asked if he wanted me to hold short of the intersection and he confirmed that yes, he did - and this is the first he's mentioned it! The runway was 9,000 ft long and because it was really busy and I was going to the end, I'd planned to touch down about half way down it. Grant it, I was only in a Navajo, so not going flaming fast, but I'm wondering if I hadn't have mentioned anything when exactly he was going to let me in on his little surprise....

BTW, Vector, if the controller doesn't let you in on his plan, I think it's reasonable to assume that the whole runway is yours, especially when you're landing at one end and your destination on the airfield is at the other

 

[Vector4fun]

BTW, Vector, if the controller doesn't let you in on his plan, I think it's reasonable to assume that the whole runway is yours, especially when you're landing at one end and your destination on the airfield is at the other

I agree it's always best to avoid surprises, and most pilots are very good about helping me make a plan work when they know what it is, but must disagree with your last in light of the above quote from the AIM. I have no problem at all with any pilot who asks to roll to the end....

 

[HiFlyChick]

Actually Vector, I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to taxiway turn off - my tendency is to land long if I'm going a long way rather than hold up the people behind me in a long taxi. My assumption (as it was in KORF that almost turned bad) is that I am free to make my touch down point anywhere on the runway unless instructed otherwise. I 've had tower tell me to expect taxiway <blah>, which was at the far end of a long runway and assume it is a subtle hint to not land onto the numbers but maybe take it down a bit (assuming there's lots of space and I'm in something small of course)

 

[minitour]

HiFly:

I see what you're saying, but any time I've been told "You can roll it to Bravo" (at the end), I usually respond with "mind if I land it long?". This way we're both on the same page.

Likewise, if I want to go to the end, I might ask if we can land long and roll to the end...maybe he's got someone off another runway to cross at the end that he figures wont' be a factor for me since I'll be off by midfield...who know.

Either way...I like to be on the same page with ATC whenever possible.

-mini

 

[HiFlyChick]

Good discussion guys - good ideas to mull over...

In thinking over the incident that I mentioned before, I believe that perhaps tower and I were both caught by surprise. The approach controller was really bad (only half answering, answering incorrectly, taking traffic too far out, etc) and in fact entirely forgot to switch us over to tower. I finally figured out that she had forgotten us (as opposed to just holding us on the freq longer as we sometimes get around here) and asked her if she wanted us over to tower and she responded by switching us with the tone of her voice clearly indicating "Oops I forgot you - what a good idea if you talk to tower". I suspect she was supposed to give us the early warning of the requirement to hold short.

 

[minitour]

Good discussion guys - good ideas to mull over...

Pilots having a good discussion and not arguing?!?!

What's the world coming to!

 

[Jmmccutc]

LOL, that would have been great

I do remember where it happened now! It was Youngstown YNG.

Wankel

they have nothing to do there...

 

[cvsfly]

Actually Vector, I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to taxiway turn off - my tendency is to land long if I'm going a long way rather than hold up the people behind me in a long taxi. My assumption (as it was in KORF that almost turned bad) is that I am free to make my touch down point anywhere on the runway unless instructed otherwise. I 've had tower tell me to expect taxiway <blah>, which was at the far end of a long runway and assume it is a subtle hint to not land onto the numbers but maybe take it down a bit (assuming there's lots of space and I'm in something small of course)

Bad assumtion. Especially Part 135 it is required that you land in the first 3rd of the runway. Communication is a 2-way street. Let the controller know what you plan on or would like to do and he should tell you the same.

 

[Wankel7]

Yeah, I should have let him know that I wanted to go to the end of the runway.

However, take a look at the diagram. Rolling to the end almost makes sense.

Wankel

 

[BankAccount=0$]

they have nothing to do there...

Gotta love YNG...... I took a student that is working with another CFI up for his night X-C, I didn't really know too much about the kid, but his flight plan looked OK so off we went. After leaving ERI I noticed that he wasn't trying to get the ATIS at YNG, but I let him continue. A couple of minutes later I see him with a flashlight looking at his chart so I ask him what he is looking for and he says YNG??? The WX was CAVU that night and you could see everything for 40+ miles around us so VIS was not an issue, but if he had tuned the ATIS and or paid attention to his briefing he would have known that YNG was doing "lights out" procedures for the ANG to practice using their night vision goggles. It was a lesson he will not soon forget, moral of the story?? listen to the briefer or the ATIS, airports are VERY difficult to find at night when they turn out all the lights....

 

[HiFlyChick]

Especially Part 135 it is required that you land in the first 3rd of the runway.

Is this in a FAR or are you saying it's general practice?

 

[cvsfly]

Thought it was an FAR reference - didn't find it. Our training program references this and FSI emphasizes this in training and checking. Might come from the Inspector's handbook 8400.?

 

[minitour]

Is this in a FAR or are you saying it's general practice?

91.175 (C)
(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

 

[HiFlyChick]

91.175 is titled "Take-off and landing under IFR". Do you know if this refers to flying under IMC, or does it mean whenever you file an IFR flight plan, even if it's screaming VFR? It seems to describe the conditions under which descent below the DH or MDA may be carried out, which seems to me that the intent is to prevent someone from passing the MAP, then catching sight of the runway and trying to make a landing on whatever runway is left.

I'd appreciate anyone's input (i.e. this is not just another argument for the sake of sport). As a Canadian that doesn't get to the US all that much, I would like to hear what the general consensus is on its interpretation with regards to choosing to land long under VMC conditions (Part 135 equivalent operator).

 

[minitour]

91.175 is titled "Take-off and landing under IFR". Do you know if this refers to flying under IMC, or does it mean whenever you file an IFR flight plan, even if it's screaming VFR? It seems to describe the conditions under which descent below the DH or MDA may be carried out, which seems to me that the intent is to prevent someone from passing the MAP, then catching sight of the runway and trying to make a landing on whatever runway is left.

Wow...that's an incredible argument. Even if you've been on an IFR flight plan, but cancel in the air, you're still a 135 operator. But now you're operating under VFR...so now what?

I tried looking under 135 specificially, but I couldn't find anything.

I guess you're right though. If you're cleared for the visual, there is no MDA or DH.

Any 135/121 gurus, examiners or check airmen on the board?

-mini

 

[Vector4fun]

Wow...that's an incredible argument....

Mini,

You are such a flirt...