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.