Pussies!
Every one of these airports has parallel RWYs longer than 3km. Something no airport in Australia has. That's why we end up with inefficient arrival and departure procedures, and modes of operation with increased levels of risk.
I find it slightly hilarious, if a little depressing, when the enquiring senators crack a collective wobbly because someone, somewhere isn't doing their job to perfection. Its not as if the senate isn't something of a stuff up now, is it...?
Aroa
Stupid pprune Android app... 
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 2nd Dec 2014 at 11:16.
I find it slightly hilarious, if a little depressing, when the enquiring senators crack a collective wobbly because someone, somewhere isn't doing their job to perfection. Its not as if the senate isn't something of a stuff up now, is it...?
How do you determine ' expertise ' or ' perfection' ? It is easy in a job like flying or Air Traffic Control because all the parameters are measured and outcomes are obvious and assessed. These are ' high validity ' professions. People actually do become ' expert' .
In political roles, and psychology , there is very little immediate feedback to confirm if someone was correct or incorrect, ( low validity) if a decision was good or bad......who knows until ten years later, and even then only if someone bothers to check up......low validity roles deny the worker the opportunity to change the ways they do things because they don't get the feedback.........therefore they never....ever.....become expert in their role.
What you're saying Framer, is that pollies with their "low validity" jobs are doing stuff where they have no clue about the outcome of their actions either before or for a long time after.
This to me is not a job as much as it is busybody meddling in affairs that they have no business to be involved in. Of course it is the pollies who define the importance of their roles themselves so the results are not surprising really.
This to me is not a job as much as it is busybody meddling in affairs that they have no business to be involved in. Of course it is the pollies who define the importance of their roles themselves so the results are not surprising really.
The MOS Part 172 is silent on the wind components for the passive runway and has been since at least 2005 (the earliest version shown on ComLaw):
10.13.5.8 LAHSO must only be permitted as follows:
(a) runways are equipped with standard LAHSO signs, lights and runway markings as specified in AIP Aerodromes (AD);
(b) the ceiling is not less than 1,000 FT and visibility is not less than 5,000 M;
(c) ‘active’ participation is restricted to runways where the crosswind component including gusts does not exceed 20 KT;
(d) simultaneous landings may be permitted by day and night;
(e) a simultaneous take-off and landing is only permitted by day;
(f) a “HOLD SHORT” requirement must not be given when low level wind shear of intensity greater than LIGHT is reported;
(g) when the runway is damp or wet, a “HOLD SHORT” requirement must only be issued if the braking characteristics are assessed as GOOD by a pilot of an aircraft in the same performance category.
Manual of Standards Part 172 - Air Traffic Services
On the surface there has never been any rule breach. The rule might be wrong but has been so for a long time.
I'm not familiar with the US legislative/regulatory process so have no idea where to find their definitive documentation stating wind requirements for LAHSO. Any takers?
10.13.5.8 LAHSO must only be permitted as follows:
(a) runways are equipped with standard LAHSO signs, lights and runway markings as specified in AIP Aerodromes (AD);
(b) the ceiling is not less than 1,000 FT and visibility is not less than 5,000 M;
(c) ‘active’ participation is restricted to runways where the crosswind component including gusts does not exceed 20 KT;
(d) simultaneous landings may be permitted by day and night;
(e) a simultaneous take-off and landing is only permitted by day;
(f) a “HOLD SHORT” requirement must not be given when low level wind shear of intensity greater than LIGHT is reported;
(g) when the runway is damp or wet, a “HOLD SHORT” requirement must only be issued if the braking characteristics are assessed as GOOD by a pilot of an aircraft in the same performance category.
Manual of Standards Part 172 - Air Traffic Services
On the surface there has never been any rule breach. The rule might be wrong but has been so for a long time.
I'm not familiar with the US legislative/regulatory process so have no idea where to find their definitive documentation stating wind requirements for LAHSO. Any takers?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
le P
Intriguing.
AIP ENR 1.1-61 33.1c says
"The ceiling is not less than the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA)
for the location where LAHSO are being conducted and visibility is
not less than 8km."
Either way, it's very dodgy if there's a double go round, where both aircraft
would go into cloud very quickly, without any spacing factored in at the intersection.
AIP ENR 1.1-61 33.1c says
"The ceiling is not less than the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA)
for the location where LAHSO are being conducted and visibility is
not less than 8km."
Either way, it's very dodgy if there's a double go round, where both aircraft
would go into cloud very quickly, without any spacing factored in at the intersection.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,093
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of what the airport may be operating some airlines, (including my last employer), banned LHASO anywhere, particularly on the B744, just didn't like it.
