Message-ID: <36964509.7ACA@ibm.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 11:48:57 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Do not go around- You will continue your approach.
References: <368ACD69.CD2C74C8@catalina-inter.net><368AD146.31ED@stephenames.com><76ejue$q63$1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
	 <VA.000006e9.0034d08f@hbmltd>
	 <01be34a3$976bf1a0$8301010a@mike-s-desktop> <VA.000006eb.004370af@hbmltd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.37.111.141
X-Trace: 8 Jan 1999 19:19:23 GMT, 129.37.111.141
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 52
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!digex!news1.radix.net!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!129.37.111.141
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:43863

Dave Mould wrote:

Michael wrote:
> > I can.  It's called LAHSO - Land and Hold Short Operations.
> > Common in the US.  For example: "Cleared to Land Rwy
> > XX hold short Rwy ZZ, YYYY ft available"  The reason for
> > the LAHSO may well be a heavy departing from the
> > intersecting runway.  A go around will mean risking a
> > midair and almost certainly tangling with his wake turbulence.
 
> *But* - does this happen without the prior knowledge of the landing 
> pilot?  

No. 

Not properly.  The pilot should be advised (by ATIS, or by the
controller if negative ATIS) that LAHSO are in effect.  The
controller should also phrase the landing clearance in the way
Michael describes: "cleared to land runway XX, hold short runway
ZZ, runway available YYYY ft".

So if LAHSO is involved, you are supposed to know about it, from
multiple sources, in advance.

Let's suppose LAHSO are in effect.  Does this preclude a go-around,
as Michael suggests?

It is instructive to review the AIM regarding LAHSO (section
4-3-11 in 1998 AIM).  4-3-11 5. clearly states in bold letters,
"A LAHSO CLEARANCE DOES NOT PRECLUDE A REJECTED LANDING".

Repeat: accepting a LAHSO clearance does not preclude a rejected
landing.  The only requirement is to maintain safe separation from
other aircraft (as always) and to promptly notify the controller.

I don't have a copy of 7110.114 which provides the ATC view of 
LAHSO, but the controller's bible 7110.65, in "intersecting
runway separation", states "application of these procedures does
not relieve controllers from the responsibility of providing
other appropriate separation contained in this order".  One
such separation, is separation should landing aircraft find
it necessary to reject a landing.  The need for wake turbulance
separation is described.

I think both these documents make it clear that a LAHSO should 
not preclude a go-around.  Other (documented) interpretations
welcome, as well as comments by those in possession of 7110.114.

Regards,
Snowbird


