Narrative:

Tower had cleared us to land and hold short. Our operations specifications have been changed almost weekly over the last 2 months in this area (by our poi). Our primary concern was whether or not we were allowed to accept this runway for lahso again, since we always find out 1 or 2 days after the change is ruled on. In believing we could and laboring over that point, we failed to consider the runway conditions, which, while having no standing water, were still wet/damp from an earlier rain. We landed and held short of the crossing runway easily, and there was never any concern about being able to stop in time. However, as a result of the confusion brought about by the frequent changes to our lahso rules recently, we fixated solely on one part of the question, inadvertently failing to consider runway conditions. Even after reviewing the manual, I am unable to determine whether we could accept that lahso clearance currently (wet or dry). The lack of timely supplements by the company for our manual on this matter was one problem, as was the controller's failure to advise us the runways were wet when he asked us if we could accept the lahso clearance. Further, the yo-yoing of our standards for lahso over the last couple months added up in this situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BEECH 1900D ACFT ASKED BY TWR CTLR TO LAND AND HOLD SHORT (LAHSO) OF XING RWY. FLC ACCEPTED, BUT WITH RESERVATIONS BECAUSE THEIR ACR'S OPERATING PROCS CHANGES OFTEN WITH REGARDS TO LAHSO OPS. ALSO, RWY WAS WET WHICH FLC DIDN'T KNOW PRIOR TO ACCEPTING THE LAHSO.

Narrative: TWR HAD CLRED US TO LAND AND HOLD SHORT. OUR OPS SPECS HAVE BEEN CHANGED ALMOST WEEKLY OVER THE LAST 2 MONTHS IN THIS AREA (BY OUR POI). OUR PRIMARY CONCERN WAS WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE ALLOWED TO ACCEPT THIS RWY FOR LAHSO AGAIN, SINCE WE ALWAYS FIND OUT 1 OR 2 DAYS AFTER THE CHANGE IS RULED ON. IN BELIEVING WE COULD AND LABORING OVER THAT POINT, WE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RWY CONDITIONS, WHICH, WHILE HAVING NO STANDING WATER, WERE STILL WET/DAMP FROM AN EARLIER RAIN. WE LANDED AND HELD SHORT OF THE XING RWY EASILY, AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONCERN ABOUT BEING ABLE TO STOP IN TIME. HOWEVER, AS A RESULT OF THE CONFUSION BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FREQUENT CHANGES TO OUR LAHSO RULES RECENTLY, WE FIXATED SOLELY ON ONE PART OF THE QUESTION, INADVERTENTLY FAILING TO CONSIDER RWY CONDITIONS. EVEN AFTER REVIEWING THE MANUAL, I AM UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE COULD ACCEPT THAT LAHSO CLRNC CURRENTLY (WET OR DRY). THE LACK OF TIMELY SUPPLEMENTS BY THE COMPANY FOR OUR MANUAL ON THIS MATTER WAS ONE PROB, AS WAS THE CTLR'S FAILURE TO ADVISE US THE RWYS WERE WET WHEN HE ASKED US IF WE COULD ACCEPT THE LAHSO CLRNC. FURTHER, THE YO-YOING OF OUR STANDARDS FOR LAHSO OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS ADDED UP IN THIS SIT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.