Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:

Hmm ... I think I *do* understand that: you land and hold short of that
150-foot portion (more specifically, short of some marked holding
point).

Well, if you understood that, why did you ask "... why bother holding short
if the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so of your own?"?

After a weekend away from the 'puter, here's how I put it last
Wednesday:

: Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
: Robert Briggs wrote:
:
: AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen
: that form of dual runway occupancy.
:
: LAHSO involves operations on intersecting runways.
:
: I realise that (modulo Newps' comment).
:
: That said, why bother holding short if the other guy's runway
: doesn't include 150 feet or so of your own? The tarmac is
: the same, even if his label for it is different from yours.

I guess I misunderstood your simple explanation of LAHSO to include
denial that it constituted a "form of dual runway occupancy" when the
other guy crosses your nose.