Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:14:56 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m18.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.208] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 547043 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:06:12 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.138.208; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id q.81.1bab3f5c (3866) for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:05:38 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <81.1bab3f5c.2ed96522@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:05:38 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LAHSO X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1101531938" X-Mailer: AOL Strauss Beta Client sub 1180 -------------------------------1101531938 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/26/2004 8:09:40 P.M. Central Standard Time, 5zq@cox.net writes: Yep, not too many of us would have a problem getting a Lancair down and stopped in 3500 feet. Like they say on TV, "but wait...there's more". Once you accept a Land and Hold Short clearance, you have accepted a RESTRICTION to LAND and Hold Short. Bill, Not being trained for the procedure, I didn't know I was "obligated" to land. Not a problem for me as usually I am the only soul aboard. I do carry a pre-stamped NASA form and I am prepared to act for the safety of the flight and fill out the paperwork later. Remember, I am not landing at "big iron" airports. I would certainly agree that the pilot of a loaded passenger plane is better off rejecting a LAHS request. <<>> I have done maybe 3 LAHSs (Maui excepted) - I doubt I would be asked to do another 3 in the next 1000 landings at any towered airport anywhere. Hmmmm, half my landings are at the far more dangerous "uncontrolled" airports where cars and animals wander about, some folks refuse to use a radio, every runway end is "active" and, even some of those landings are in Wisconsin during hunting season where I hope I won't be brought down by a 30-30 because my prop looks like antlers. OK, OK they're risky. I certainly can see that rejecting a GA LAHS request only costs a few minutes more and exercises the controllers brain to figure out an alternate scheme. Hmmmmm, there was one new controller that was befuddled when the traffic count exceeded 3 - sometimes those of us in the air became deputy controllers by suggesting operations that would safely reduce the active count. Any LAHSO suggested by that controller would certainly be rejected since 3 runways by 2 planes exceeded spatial reasoning capability. No go around there, just hang out beyond the class D until controller change occurred. GA has more options. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR) Some Assembly Required Using Common Hand Tools and statistical chaos. -------------------------------1101531938 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 11/26/2004 8:09:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 5zq@cox.net writes:

<= FONT=20 face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2>Yep, not too m= any of us=20 would have a problem getting a Lancair down and stopped in 3500 feet. Like= =20 they say on TV, "but wait...there's more". Once you accept a Land and Hold= =20 Short clearance, you have accepted a RESTRICTION to LAND and H= old=20 Short.

Bill,

Not being trained for the procedure, I didn't know I was "obligated" to= =20 land. Not a problem for me as usually I am the only soul=20 aboard. I do carry a pre-stamped NASA form and I am prepared to act fo= r=20 the safety of the flight and fill out the paperwork later. Remember, I= am=20 not landing at "big iron" airports. I would certainly agree that the p= ilot=20 of a loaded passenger plane is better off rejecting a LAHS request.

<<<Is this scenario a long shot? You bet= .=20 Could it happen? Of course. What are the chances of it happening on this=20 landing? Small... really small. What are the chances of it happening on one=20= of=20 your next 1,000 landings? Somewhat greater. No matter how small, there is a=20 risk, legal or operational, that accepting this LAHSO clearance will bite=20 you.>>>

I have done maybe 3 LAHSs (Maui excepted) - I doubt I would be ask= ed=20 to do another 3 in the next 1000 landings at any towered airport=20 anywhere. Hmmmm, half my landings are at the far more dangerous=20 "uncontrolled" airports where cars and animals wander about, some folks refu= se=20 to use a radio, every runway end is "active" and, even some of=20 those landings are in Wisconsin during hunting season where I hope I wo= n't=20 be brought down by a 30-30 because my prop looks like antlers.

OK, OK they're risky. I certainly can see that rejecting a GA LAHS requ= est=20 only costs a few minutes more and exercises the controllers brain to figure=20= out=20 an alternate scheme. Hmmmmm, there was one new controller that wa= s=20 befuddled when the traffic count exceeded 3 - sometimes those of us in the a= ir=20 became deputy controllers by suggesting operations that would safely reduce=20= the=20 active count. Any LAHSO suggested by that controller would certai= nly=20 be rejected since 3 runways by 2 planes exceeded spatial reasoning=20 capability. No go around there, just hang out beyond the class D until= =20 controller change occurred. GA has more options.

Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR)

Some Assembly Required=20
Using Common Hand Tools

and statistical chaos.

-------------------------------1101531938--