LAHSO (Land and hold short ) at Sydney airpart
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: w
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAHSO (Land and hold short ) at Sydney airpart
hello everybody!
i have seen LAHSO on Sydney Kingsford airpart plates. could anybody tell me the details about LADHS proceture? Is it something special at kingsford only?
what i understood is: if we land on rw34l,then we have to fully stop before rw25 or 07. is that correct?
thanks and best regards!
i have seen LAHSO on Sydney Kingsford airpart plates. could anybody tell me the details about LADHS proceture? Is it something special at kingsford only?
what i understood is: if we land on rw34l,then we have to fully stop before rw25 or 07. is that correct?
thanks and best regards!
LAHSO is an invention intended to facilitate mixed runway operations. Fine for a C150 to land and hold short of the main RW, but questionable for many large ac to attempt to stop on an intersecting RW without infringing that RW's domain.
Hence if I am offered a LAHSO procedure, I am required to state 'This ac type is not approved for LAHSO operations'.
Hence if I am offered a LAHSO procedure, I am required to state 'This ac type is not approved for LAHSO operations'.
I think Sydney is also home to "SODPROPS" - Simultaneous Opposite Directions Parallel Runway OperationS.
But I think SODPROPS is an anagram of Disaster Waiting To Happen, myself - the result of commercial pressures over-riding safety.
But I think SODPROPS is an anagram of Disaster Waiting To Happen, myself - the result of commercial pressures over-riding safety.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: w
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much! BEagle.
so you mean what i understood is correct?
and when the ATIS says "LAHSO in progress", then i have to state : 'This ac type is not approved for LAHSO operations' during approach. right?(my type is B777)
and if i didn`t state that,and i in fringed the intersection, is that a big problem? and what should i do after that?
thanks!
so you mean what i understood is correct?
and when the ATIS says "LAHSO in progress", then i have to state : 'This ac type is not approved for LAHSO operations' during approach. right?(my type is B777)
and if i didn`t state that,and i in fringed the intersection, is that a big problem? and what should i do after that?
thanks!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with LAHSO is that one aircraft is cleared to LAHS of the intersection whilst another aircraft receives a take off or landing clearance for the other runway. Hence the only thing to prevent a catastrophic smash up at the intersection is your (or the other) aircrafts ability to stop as quickly as promised. Should you suffer a brake failure or otherwise, things are going to get very frightening very quickly. Furthermore if you both go around then you're going to get very close at some point as many airport do not publish seperate missed approach procedures for intersecting runways when LAHSO is in use. The UK CAA take a very dim view of LAHSO and my employer doesn't permit it at all.
To answer your questions though, LAHSO operations aren't really dependent on aircraft type but by your professional common sense. If you are unwilling to accept a LAHSO clearance then say so on first contact. If you do accept a clearance then infringe the runway intersection then I suggest praying would be a sensible course of action, whilst employing copious quantites of forward or reverse thrust to get out of it fast! And make sure everybody knows where you are!
To answer your questions though, LAHSO operations aren't really dependent on aircraft type but by your professional common sense. If you are unwilling to accept a LAHSO clearance then say so on first contact. If you do accept a clearance then infringe the runway intersection then I suggest praying would be a sensible course of action, whilst employing copious quantites of forward or reverse thrust to get out of it fast! And make sure everybody knows where you are!
Last edited by Carnage Matey!; 14th Apr 2002 at 14:47.
I've been cleared to land in the US at Nashville with another ac cleared to LAHS on an intersecting RW!
If ATC say that LAHSO is in efect, refuse the clearance if you're flying anything much biger than a JetStream. It is a recipe for disaster, in my view.
If ATC say that LAHSO is in efect, refuse the clearance if you're flying anything much biger than a JetStream. It is a recipe for disaster, in my view.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A coule of points on LAHSO
ATC should have a list of approved operators and aircraft types.
There are two types of 'participants' in LAHSO:
The 'passive' participant operates on the intersecting runway with full length available. Effectively, the passive aircraft does nothing different to normal operations, except to be aware that another aircraft will be landing and holding short on the other.
The 'active' participant is instructed to 'land and hold short'. To my knowledge, this can only be applied to aircraft of Perf Cat C or lower, and provided that the operators (and individual crews, I think) have been appropriately trained. (Note: I am not absolutely sure if these are the curent requirements, and stand to be corrected.)
In theory, you should not be told to 'land and hold short' if you have not met the criteria.
W777
If your type is a B777 (Perf Cat D?), and it seems (from the fact you are asking the question) that you have not been specifically trained in LAHSO, you should never be offered 'active' participation.
My advice, if you are offered an active LAHSO and don't think you meet the criteria, is to refuse. Check with your company however! As an ATC I expect pilot's to refuse any clearance or instruction which jeopardises safety in the opinion of the pilot. The PIC always maintains responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and its occupants - always.
BEagle
You may find agreement onthis issue if you spoke to the crew of an Ansett A320 and a Thai DC10 a few years back! This incident highlights a number of systemic issues with the procedure.
LAHSO apparently works very well when everything goes according to plan. The real philosophical argument is whether or not the procedure provides an adequate margin for error/system failure or plain bad luck.
ATC should have a list of approved operators and aircraft types.
There are two types of 'participants' in LAHSO:
The 'passive' participant operates on the intersecting runway with full length available. Effectively, the passive aircraft does nothing different to normal operations, except to be aware that another aircraft will be landing and holding short on the other.
The 'active' participant is instructed to 'land and hold short'. To my knowledge, this can only be applied to aircraft of Perf Cat C or lower, and provided that the operators (and individual crews, I think) have been appropriately trained. (Note: I am not absolutely sure if these are the curent requirements, and stand to be corrected.)
In theory, you should not be told to 'land and hold short' if you have not met the criteria.
W777
If your type is a B777 (Perf Cat D?), and it seems (from the fact you are asking the question) that you have not been specifically trained in LAHSO, you should never be offered 'active' participation.
My advice, if you are offered an active LAHSO and don't think you meet the criteria, is to refuse. Check with your company however! As an ATC I expect pilot's to refuse any clearance or instruction which jeopardises safety in the opinion of the pilot. The PIC always maintains responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and its occupants - always.
BEagle
If ATC say that LAHSO is in effect, refuse the clearance if you're flying anything much biger than a JetStream. It is a recipe for disaster, in my view.
LAHSO apparently works very well when everything goes according to plan. The real philosophical argument is whether or not the procedure provides an adequate margin for error/system failure or plain bad luck.
Australian LAHSO is avaliable to both local and foreign pilots in cat A,B, C, D aircraft. The pilot must be LAHSO approved. It is subject to many conditions. See Australian AIP ENR 1.1-61
But not in the States where LAHSO is offered and expected by some controllers. My airline (like a lot of european operators) prohibit it's use and like BEagle I am required to refuse a LAHSO clearance if offered.
But it came in surrepticiously, only being highlighted by BA when one of their 744s rejected a take off at ORD and crossed the path of a landing aircraft.
I first came across the procedure three years ago shortly after it's introduction. Having accepting a LAHSO clearance not really undrstanding it's significance, I was suprised to see an aicraft take off just in front of me, having only stopped just short of the intersection. As a result of this and a bit of research, I hightlighted it to my company and had it banned. (Same company as BEagles).
Now, on runways that are certified for LAHSO, reduced LDAs should be published. Jepp charts have these LDAs printed on them. But it doesn't reduce the risk IMHO.
LAHSO is no the same as simultaneous runway operations as used at places such as SFO, as there is no requirement to reduce your LDA.
However, Canada has it's own version of LAHSO called SIRO (Simultaneous Intersecting Runway Operations) which does sound a bit like the US simultaneous runway operations, but is in fact LAHSO.
ALPA recommended that it's members reject all LAHSO clearances.
If you do accept a LAHSO clearance, take great care!
But it came in surrepticiously, only being highlighted by BA when one of their 744s rejected a take off at ORD and crossed the path of a landing aircraft.
I first came across the procedure three years ago shortly after it's introduction. Having accepting a LAHSO clearance not really undrstanding it's significance, I was suprised to see an aicraft take off just in front of me, having only stopped just short of the intersection. As a result of this and a bit of research, I hightlighted it to my company and had it banned. (Same company as BEagles).
Now, on runways that are certified for LAHSO, reduced LDAs should be published. Jepp charts have these LDAs printed on them. But it doesn't reduce the risk IMHO.
LAHSO is no the same as simultaneous runway operations as used at places such as SFO, as there is no requirement to reduce your LDA.
However, Canada has it's own version of LAHSO called SIRO (Simultaneous Intersecting Runway Operations) which does sound a bit like the US simultaneous runway operations, but is in fact LAHSO.
ALPA recommended that it's members reject all LAHSO clearances.
If you do accept a LAHSO clearance, take great care!
