Narrative:

Landing dfw runway 17C we were asked at 12 DME final to hold short of taxiway B. The captain accepted the hold short request and we complied upon landing. When we broke out of the overcast at 1300 ft AGL, there were no aircraft holding to cross our runway throughout the time we landed, rolled out, and exited runway 17C. In operations, I called the east tower supervisor to inquire why we were asked to hold short with no crossing aircraft in the vicinity. He explained that hold short operations are either in effect or not in effect and that with so many aircraft landing and crossing, it is impossible to handle each individual hold short request for actual crossing traffic. I explained that this blanket use of lahso makes the crews liable to hold short when it is often times not necessary. He responded that this is not likely to change and it is our company that wants to expedite runway xings. Lahso at dfw continues to be misused in this way. Either this blanket use of lahso should be addressed and changed, or our capts should stop accepting all hold short requests. As a footnote, dfw ATIS uses the phrase 'simultaneous runway lndgs and xings in effect' to mean lahso in effect. Most other major airports use the phrase 'lahso in effect.' the tower supervisor referred to 71-17.65 as the authority/authorized for the use of the dfw phraseology.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR MD80 FLC COMPLAINS THAT DFW USES A BLANKET LAND AND HOLD SHORT OP INSTEAD OF CLRING EACH ACFT INDIVIDUALLY, THAT THIS TYPE OF POLICY REQUIRES EACH ACFT TO USE LAHSO PROC EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR THAT PARTICULAR FLT.

Narrative: LNDG DFW RWY 17C WE WERE ASKED AT 12 DME FINAL TO HOLD SHORT OF TXWY B. THE CAPT ACCEPTED THE HOLD SHORT REQUEST AND WE COMPLIED UPON LNDG. WHEN WE BROKE OUT OF THE OVCST AT 1300 FT AGL, THERE WERE NO ACFT HOLDING TO CROSS OUR RWY THROUGHOUT THE TIME WE LANDED, ROLLED OUT, AND EXITED RWY 17C. IN OPS, I CALLED THE E TWR SUPVR TO INQUIRE WHY WE WERE ASKED TO HOLD SHORT WITH NO XING ACFT IN THE VICINITY. HE EXPLAINED THAT HOLD SHORT OPS ARE EITHER IN EFFECT OR NOT IN EFFECT AND THAT WITH SO MANY ACFT LNDG AND XING, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HANDLE EACH INDIVIDUAL HOLD SHORT REQUEST FOR ACTUAL XING TFC. I EXPLAINED THAT THIS BLANKET USE OF LAHSO MAKES THE CREWS LIABLE TO HOLD SHORT WHEN IT IS OFTEN TIMES NOT NECESSARY. HE RESPONDED THAT THIS IS NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE AND IT IS OUR COMPANY THAT WANTS TO EXPEDITE RWY XINGS. LAHSO AT DFW CONTINUES TO BE MISUSED IN THIS WAY. EITHER THIS BLANKET USE OF LAHSO SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AND CHANGED, OR OUR CAPTS SHOULD STOP ACCEPTING ALL HOLD SHORT REQUESTS. AS A FOOTNOTE, DFW ATIS USES THE PHRASE 'SIMULTANEOUS RWY LNDGS AND XINGS IN EFFECT' TO MEAN LAHSO IN EFFECT. MOST OTHER MAJOR ARPTS USE THE PHRASE 'LAHSO IN EFFECT.' THE TWR SUPVR REFERRED TO 71-17.65 AS THE AUTH FOR THE USE OF THE DFW PHRASEOLOGY.

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.