Land and Hold Short: What happens in a go-around?

[ross_M]

I've read about a number of airports using a LAHSO procedure (discretion of aircraft, of course). But let's say the Captain accepts an LAHSO clearance and then has to abort the landing and go-around what happens?

There's a chance that there is another aircraft on the intersecting runway, right?

I'd almost wonder what would happen if both planes declare a go around; but it seems that might be probabilistically an unlikely event.

Curious what the pros think about this? Are there any LAHSO horror stories out there?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

There's a nice Air Traffic man in the tower who would sort it out...

[ross_M]

Ah! I didn't realize the tower would have time to sort anything in a late go-around.

[parabellum]

Chicago regularly gives Landing, Hold Short and I believe there are some stories to tell about it. We were lucky as we would be arriving in a heavy B744 freighter, often close to max landing weight and with a Vref around 155-157kts, so we notified ATC in advance we couldn't accept any hold short and they always fitted us in.

[BOAC]

Yes, ross - there are stories around, and ATC would not have a snowball's chance in hell of 'sorting anything out'. There could well be mangled metal and probably a policy change:)

[ross_M]

Yes, ross - there are stories around, and ATC would not have a snowball's chance in hell of 'sorting anything out'. There could well be mangled metal and probably a policy change


In short: Crappy idea?

[Nicholas49]

What does 'Land and Hold Short' mean in plain English? Does it mean land and then wait on the runway for permission to leave it?

Why would two aircraft going around simultaneously be a problem? Surely departure/arrival procedures are designed so that their respective flight paths would not intersect?

What am I missing here? Please enlighten me!

[Crazy Voyager]

LAHSO means
Land and hold short of something (usually an intersecting runway).
For example if you look at this chart from Chicago
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1106/00166AD.PDF
Say that you land 22R, you could get a clearance (if you've agreed to LAHSO)
Cleared to land runway 22R; hold short of runway 27L.
Notice where it says LAHSO on the chart? Just before the intersection of 22R and 27L. That means you have agreed to stop and hold short before that line, thus freeing 27L for a movement.

If someone spots a mistake here please point it out, but this is how I've understood it :)

[+TSRA]

Ross_M:

Some of your questions of late seem more like a reporter trying to get an angle on a "horror story in aviation" in order to paint us with a bad brush rather than an enthusist wanting to know more about LAHSO, MEL or simulator stuff. Be very careful sir: we will answer any question until it becomes apparent that we are being played, and you are coming very close to that.

I digest; LAHSO are not a "crappy idea". It is a useful tool used by Air Traffic Control in the management of traffic at busy centres (that is, after all, their job).

I also fully, but respectfully, disagree with some earlier comments: LAHSO operations take into account the possibility of conflicting traffic, and controllers will not take undue risk in clearing an aircraft for takeoff or landing on an intersecting runway if they were not certain that the opposing traffic was not in conflict (remember that a takeoff or landing clearance can always be retracted.) Sure, there may be stories around - there always are - but it is more likely to be mitigating circumstances that cause the story, rather than the procedure itself.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<ATC would not have a snowball's chance in hell of 'sorting anything out'.>>

You do ATC somewhat of an injustice BOAC.

[L337]

FWIW....British Airways refuse to engage in LAHSO operations in the USA. Might have something to do with safety?

[ross_M]

@+TSRA:

My apologies if I seemed trolling or bad-mouthing. I can, in hindsight, see why it does seem so. And my comment about LAHSO being a "crappy idea" was hasty and uncalled for; I just went overboard based on some other comments in the thread.

Let me try an clarify where I am coming from. Not making excuses but giving my side of the story. For starters I am not a reporter or anything like that. Neither is my goal to malign aviation. Quite the contrary. I have great respect for professional pilots and regret that I could never go down the path to be one.

What I do have is a lot of curiosity about flying since I was a kid. I have also taken a few flying lessons and would like to get my PPL some day (when I have more $$$; I'm just out of grad school)

What does happen is this: I don't end up asking question like "What is a stall" or even "What is an MEL or what is LASHO". These I know or can google up and read at length at FAA, CAA, NTSB etc. The questions that I do end up asking are ones which are left after my initial reading, or after I see posts on pprune where I get two different pieces of information that seem mutually inconsistent. No wonder that a lot of these topics are indeed controversial.

So yes, MELs and LASHO may not be the run-of-the-mill SLF questions and out of place on this forum. Doesn't help that I've stayed in academia for long so somewhat tone-deaf to reportorial muck-raking, baiting, blame-mongering etc.

So, again, my apologies and thanks for the great explainations you've all given me! Curiosity does kill the cat.........

[SeenItAll]

I presume LAHSO is only practiced when then the LAHSO point on the runway offers adequate distance for the plane to stop (i.e., if a 10,000 foot runway has a LAHSO point 1500 feet from its end, it is considered to be a 8500 foot runway, and only arrivals that can handle a 8500 foot runway are offered it).

Therefore, the question is: if a BA flight can accept a 8500 foot landing runway, why would it refuse a 10,000 foot runway with a 8500 LAHSO distance? Is it simply considered to be safer to run off of the end of a 8500 foot runway than to take the small risk that in the instant one needs the extra length of a LAHSO runway that the extra 1500 feet will be occupied by crossing traffic?

[Crazy Voyager]

This is just me speculating, but I'm guessing one thing they're worrying about is misjudging where the LAHSO point is.

I'm thinking hypotetically something like

Tricky winds, landing late
Aiming for an RET due to traffic behind.
Missing the fact that the RET is acctually past the LAHSO point and thereby causing a runway incursion.

Just me speculating though, I'd love to get a professional answer it!