J_hallgren From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1507 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2286 times:
I was victim of a one on Monday evening from BOS to TPA, and was told it was due to ATC. The fly.faa.gov advisory archives had some notes about "Runway/NO LAHSO" but what caused the advisory? Any clues to how to find out? Just want to find if airline (DL) was in any way responsible....
Iahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3405 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2230 times:
Long ATC delays can cause flights to be canceled for secondary reasons..ie crews going 'illegal' (running out of flight time), or delayed flights downline because of the stuck plane. Say the plane in question was to fly BOS TPA and then TPA BOS ATL, the delay leaving for TPA will cause the plane to be late the rest of the day. So... if the segment causing the problem is canceled, the rest of the plane's schedule (and thus all the downline customers involved) are back on time.The ATC delay may not force a flight to cancel, but the airline may find it the lesser of two (or three) evils to disrupt one planeload of customers to avoid doing so to several more later on. This is the so-called "Big Picture".
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2212 times:
In some cases, it is best not to know.
The other day I was flying to SYD from MEL and an earlier flight was cancelled due to a mechanical issue with a 767. From the lounge window I could see maintenance men servicing the 767. It's surprising how untechnical it looks when you see a lone man climb a ladder and open the side of the engine with a spanner and go to work. It would have made me nervous if the plane I had to travel on was the same one I had seen a sole technician tinkering with just minutes before.
Seattle ops From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
Ever since ALPA recomended its members refuse LAHSO (LAND AND HOLD SHORT) instructions from Boston tower, the boston airport has been unable to support the normal amounts of flights. There have been and will continue to be severe delays in Bos.
Critter From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 267 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2166 times:
What does a technician working on an aircraft have to do with anything? There are a lot of jobs which can be accomplished by a single technician. Not all problems are considered "critical to flight" and require an inspector or second set of eyes. We technicians are very highly trained and qualified individuals who can handle many descrepencies without someone else holding our hands. We all have very strict rules and regulations that we must follow including Aircraft Manufactures Technical Manuals, Governing Body Regulations, Company Policies and Procedures, etc. If we don't follow these rules and guidlines to the "T" at all times, we risk losing our licenses, jobs and worst of all the lives of our passengers. Maintaining these aircraft is not something that is taken lightly by us and we would appreciate your respect.
Bernsa From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2142 times:
Land and Hold Short refers to the technique of an airplane landing and then rather than crossing an active runway after landing, will "hold short" or stop before crossing another active runway. This can effectively reduce the amount of runway the pilots given the LHSO instruction have in the case of emergencies, and hence why the pilots are not very happy with it.
That may not be 100% accurate, but is more or less the gist of it.
DC-9CAPT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
>>>"Land and Hold Short refers to the technique of an airplane landing and then rather than crossing an active runway after landing."
LAHSO is not a technique. It is an ATC operation intended to keep traffic flowing at airports whose runways intersect. There are good contributions on this topic in the tech ops forum. Just do a search. Also there is a good article on this topic on the ALPA site and it states just why ALPA and many flight crews report "Unable LAHSO".
V Jet From Australia, joined May 1999, 719 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2117 times:
Tullamarine, I have to agree with Critter. Why would someone working on an acft make you nervous if you had to fly on it. If there was any problem the captain would refuse to take it - they dont have a death wish I'm sure!
J_hallgren From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
First, thanks for the comments!
Now some followup info/questions....
My flight was at 6pm BUT was cancelled at 9 AM!
If pilots are refusing LAHSO, do they pick a day to all "strike" a certain airport? Or is it one at a time? If so, how could that mess up schedule that early?
And why would ATC say "no LAHSO" if it's pilots that are doing it? I'm a bit confused stilll.....
When I took off from BOS in late May, I saw LAHSO in operation...and it was a bit disconcerting! I had a left window seat and saw another a/c about to land on runway that intersected ours. As we reached the crossover point, we were airborne quite far already BUT I could see other one directly under us...or so it seemed...enough to make me wonder if we hadn't made it, how would it have worked!