LAHSO - British Airways
 

I notice that BA NEVER takes part in LAHSO operations, I have heard them state they are unable.

Is this a company policy or is there another reason?

For the most part I think it is a good thing, so many things can go wrong causing a landing to be "long"

PT6

Yeah either that or they don't like putting the safety of their aircraft/pax into the hands of the spotty faced 400hr CPL driving a cheiften, who is the other half of the LAHSO equation.

Company policy....

I believe its actually JAR-OPS policy and no European carrier will accept it. The number of near misses on intersecting runways in the US recently, you'd think they would think twice too!

For safety considerations...

Believe it's not a JAR-OPS requirement. We did one the other day in Stavanger, neither captain nor me had any problem with it...but on the other hand no operational problem, LDA still 3-4 times more than required and the other traffic was a helicopter departing.

LAHSO must be permitted by your national aviation authority, in this case the UK CAA, who do not approve UK operators to participate in LAHSO and therefore all UK airlines will decline a LAHSO clearance.

So "company policy" it may be, but I believe it is the only policy open to them.

At the risk of sounding offensive, it doesn't matter what the CAA or FAA say; if it says I can't do it in my company Ops manual, then I can't do it.
ergo.....company policy.

Equally, that includes "active" and "passive" LAHSO. We are not permitted to Land and Hold Short for anyone else. Neither are we permitted to land when someone else is landing and holding short for us. The second option is a bit more complicated but just as valid.:ok:

Thanks for the information guys!

I was just curious, I see that an air carrier can not take part in LAHSO ops unless the other aircraft in the operation is also an air carrier... but still so many things can go wrong.

Good on BA for having it on their flight plan that they will decline!


PT6

Wasn't some sort of modified LAHSO operation brought into Stansted at the time of the Afhgan hijacking in Feb 2000 - I remember landing on 23 the next day and braking very hard to make the first RET due reduced runway length.

Different against LAHSO ;)

I wonder how we all manage to operate into Las Vegas then - it is in use constantly :cool:

Well effectively the same as the whole runway was there but half of it was closed.

The same way everybody else operates into all the other US airfields that use it constantly. You tell ATC you can't do it and they make an exception.

I know with BA at least, it is on their flight plans that they can not accept LAHSO so ATC are fully aware ahead of time.

Likewise, bmi don't operate LAHSO into ORD and LAS with the A330. Never been a problem with ATC at either airport.

I'm sorry guys.......

If you have operated in LAS and think that ATC even have a clue whether you are or aren't LAHSO non compliant, you are being nieve.

Personally, I don't care because in that instance, the crossing is so far down the runway as not to be a concern.

Now SFB, they also operate LAHSO and we don't get the option - they do put a/c onto the cross runway and get them to hold short for us.

"Quote:
Different against LAHSO

Well effectively the same as the whole runway was there but half of it was closed......"


Surely not....

A LAHSO operation involves traffic landing/departing on a runway that is crossing the runway you've been cleared for. You accept the LAHSO on condition that you can stop in the distance before the clearance limit so as to facilitate smooth airport ops for the other traffic in the LAHSO.

Landing on a 'shorter' runway due to other factors = entirely different as no possible conflict with crossing traffic.