LAHSO 4000 feet??

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

User avatar
DaveF
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:44 am

LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by DaveF »

I was reading this FAA document that lists all aircraft types and their flight plan designators. But it also has Land And Hold Short Operations codes for each aircraft, and I see that the 170 is category 4, meaning that at LAHSO airports, the 170 must have at least 4000 feet of runway available in order to be issued a LAHSO landing clearance. Really? That's the same as a Beech 18, a Debonair, and a 680 Commander. 172s and other comparable airplanes are all category 1. C180 is category 2. What makes them think we're such poor pilots?
LAHSO.jpg
User avatar
Ryan Smith
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:26 am

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by Ryan Smith »

They probably realize the average 170 owner is old as dirt and factor attrition of flying skill. :lol:
User avatar
falco
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 5:44 pm

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by falco »

not the first typo in a gov't document.
User avatar
canav8
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by canav8 »

I am more concerned about the Wake Catagory F. I am now considered a Cessna "Heavy". LOL
52' C-170B N2713D Ser #25255
Doug
User avatar
n2582d
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 4:58 am

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by n2582d »

Doug, It looks like the FAA's heaviest category for wake is "A" and the lightest is "F". Go figure. :?
Gary
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by GAHorn »

It's not a reflection of the C170 relative to other aircraft. You are interpreting that oddly.

It is actually a restriction upon ATC. They are not allowed to issue LAHSO to that category aircraft if less than 4K' of runway is available.

The pilot can ALWAYS reject any LAHSO instructions and he accepts it only at his discretion.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
Ryan Smith
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:26 am

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by Ryan Smith »

gahorn wrote:It's not a reflection of the C170 relative to other aircraft. You are interpreting that oddly.

It is actually a restriction upon ATC. They are not allowed to issue LAHSO to that category aircraft if less than 4K' of runway is available.

The pilot can ALWAYS reject any LAHSO instructions and he accepts it only at his discretion.
The point is a 172 is a category 1 aircraft. The 170, for all intents and purposes, is an identical aircraft, is a category 4. Better argument - what about Ole Pokey? Frank DOES have a 172 that is, in every other way, identical to a 170 save for the different-shapd empennage. Why the difference? Half the time I'm coded as a C172/U even though I clearly say Cessna One Seven Zero Slant Uniform when getting flight following. Do I get to call the tower when they are doing LAHSO and I accept with less than 4K feet of runway at sea level and they have me in the system as a 172?
User avatar
DaveF
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:44 am

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by DaveF »

DaveF wrote:at LAHSO airports, the 170 must have at least 4000 feet of runway available in order to be issued a LAHSO landing clearance.
gahorn wrote:It is actually a restriction upon ATC. They are not allowed to issue LAHSO to that category aircraft if less than 4K' of runway is available.
OK

But the real question is, why the difference between the 170 and 172? I'd guess it's just ignorance of the type by the guy who made the table. It bugs me because I want to be asked to land and hold short!
User avatar
sfarringer
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:49 pm

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by sfarringer »

If you get upset every time you find an inconsistency created by a federal government agency, you're probably upset continuously....... :roll:
Ragwing S/N 18073
User avatar
edbooth
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:03 am

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by edbooth »

Ryan Smith wrote:They probably realize the average 170 owner is old as dirt and factor attrition of flying skill. :lol:
Hey Ryan, I represent that !!
Ed Booth, 170-B and RV-7 Driver
User avatar
Ryan Smith
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:26 am

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by Ryan Smith »

edbooth wrote:
Ryan Smith wrote:They probably realize the average 170 owner is old as dirt and factor attrition of flying skill. :lol:
Hey Ryan, I represent that !!
You only just turned 79. You're a spring chicken still! Also, I highly doubt the second applies.
hilltop170
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by hilltop170 »

I'm surprised George didn't pick up on the 4000' LAHSO.

It only applies to red ones! :lol:
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
User avatar
3958v
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:00 am

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by 3958v »

Thats because the red ones are a whole lot faster!!!!!!
Polished 48 170 Cat 22 JD 620 & Pug
User avatar
170C
Posts: 3182
Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 11:59 am

Re: LAHSO 4000 feet??

Post by 170C »

BRUCE are you going this let those guys get away with that RED talk :lol:
OLE POKEY
170C
Director:
2012-2018
Post Reply