Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #26753
From: <Sky2high@aol.com>
Sender: Marvin Kaye <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LAHSO
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:14:56 -0500
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
In a message dated 11/26/2004 8:09:40 P.M. Central Standard Time, 5zq@cox.net writes:
Yep, not too many of us would have a problem getting a Lancair down and stopped in 3500 feet. Like they say on TV, "but wait...there's more". Once you accept a Land and Hold Short clearance, you have accepted a RESTRICTION to LAND and Hold Short.
Bill,
 
Not being trained for the procedure, I didn't know I was "obligated" to land.  Not a problem for me as usually I am the only soul aboard.  I do carry a pre-stamped NASA form and I am prepared to act for the safety of the flight and fill out the paperwork later.  Remember, I am not landing at "big iron" airports.  I would certainly agree that the pilot of a loaded passenger plane is better off rejecting a LAHS request.
 
<<<Is this scenario a long shot? You bet. Could it happen? Of course. What are the chances of it happening on this landing? Small... really small. What are the chances of it happening on one of your next 1,000 landings? Somewhat greater. No matter how small, there is a risk, legal or operational, that accepting this LAHSO clearance will bite you.>>>
 
I have done maybe 3 LAHSs (Maui excepted) - I doubt I would be asked to do another 3 in the next 1000 landings at any towered airport anywhere.  Hmmmm, half my landings are at the far more dangerous "uncontrolled" airports where cars and animals wander about, some folks refuse to use a radio, every runway end is "active" and, even some of those landings are in Wisconsin during hunting season where I hope I won't be brought down by a 30-30 because my prop looks like antlers.
 
OK, OK they're risky. I certainly can see that rejecting a GA LAHS request only costs a few minutes more and exercises the controllers brain to figure out an alternate scheme.  Hmmmmm, there was one new controller that was befuddled when the traffic count exceeded 3 - sometimes those of us in the air became deputy controllers by suggesting operations that would safely reduce the active count.  Any LAHSO suggested by that controller would certainly be rejected since 3 runways by 2 planes exceeded spatial reasoning capability.  No go around there, just hang out beyond the class D until controller change occurred.  GA has more options.
 
Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk
N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR)

Some Assembly Required
Using Common Hand Tools
and statistical chaos.
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster