Narrative:

Tower controller told us to land and hold short runway 12 for departure/arrival aircraft. I told him that I was 'unable.' he told me I might have to go around then. I told him that would be fine. He then asked if I had told approach that I could not hold short and I told him no, that I could not get a word in edgewise. Some ATC controllers are upset that many pilots are not accepting lahso clrncs due to the fact that we consider them not safe. Mia tower has called many of our pilots on the phone or requested a phone call when they do not accept a lahso clearance. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter indicated that due to a number of safety issues the pilots in his company are categorically refusing all lahso requests: 1) aircraft operating limitations in the landing confign (15 degree bank) would be exceeded if the procedure required (30 degree bank) for a go around were followed. 2) a significant number of incidents have occurred where approach control neglected to contact tower. 3) lahso requests have been given in marginal WX or when tailwinds exist. He also indicated that 'many of the pilots in his company have been phoned, or requested to call the tower if a lahso was not accepted.' reporter felt this was a subtle form of coercion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCHING MIA, A CL65 REGIONAL JET WAS ISSUED LAHSO CLRNC DUE TO DEPARTING ARRIVING ACFT. THE RPTR WAS UNABLE TO XMIT REFUSAL OF LAHSO TO APCH CTL DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION. ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH TWR, HE WAS AGAIN ISSUED LAHSO. CAPT REFUSED AND WAS SENT AROUND.

Narrative: TWR CTLR TOLD US TO LAND AND HOLD SHORT RWY 12 FOR DEP/ARR ACFT. I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS 'UNABLE.' HE TOLD ME I MIGHT HAVE TO GO AROUND THEN. I TOLD HIM THAT WOULD BE FINE. HE THEN ASKED IF I HAD TOLD APCH THAT I COULD NOT HOLD SHORT AND I TOLD HIM NO, THAT I COULD NOT GET A WORD IN EDGEWISE. SOME ATC CTLRS ARE UPSET THAT MANY PLTS ARE NOT ACCEPTING LAHSO CLRNCS DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE CONSIDER THEM NOT SAFE. MIA TWR HAS CALLED MANY OF OUR PLTS ON THE PHONE OR REQUESTED A PHONE CALL WHEN THEY DO NOT ACCEPT A LAHSO CLRNC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR INDICATED THAT DUE TO A NUMBER OF SAFETY ISSUES THE PLTS IN HIS COMPANY ARE CATEGORICALLY REFUSING ALL LAHSO REQUESTS: 1) ACFT OPERATING LIMITATIONS IN THE LNDG CONFIGN (15 DEG BANK) WOULD BE EXCEEDED IF THE PROC REQUIRED (30 DEG BANK) FOR A GAR WERE FOLLOWED. 2) A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED WHERE APCH CTL NEGLECTED TO CONTACT TWR. 3) LAHSO REQUESTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN MARGINAL WX OR WHEN TAILWINDS EXIST. HE ALSO INDICATED THAT 'MANY OF THE PLTS IN HIS COMPANY HAVE BEEN PHONED, OR REQUESTED TO CALL THE TWR IF A LAHSO WAS NOT ACCEPTED.' RPTR FELT THIS WAS A SUBTLE FORM OF COERCION.

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.