I doubt they were within book runway numbers if a two engine departure was that marginal.

There's a lot of margin built into the numbers, so you can get away with this much of the time, as long as both engines work.

Mike C.

That corresponds to a landing weight of 9500 lbs.

That would mean an empty weight of around 6800 lbs (400 lbs people, 2300 lbs fuel) which seems way under what a typical 501 achieves. Is this plane super light for some reason?


Which shop did the work?

Mike C.

Are the landing numbers factored or unfactored?

Unfactored, direct from the manual, aka certified landing distance.

For those who might not know, "factored" runway distances are those with extra margins built in. A typical margin is to multiply the unfactored distance by 1.67 to get the factored distance. Some operations, like part 135, require this, which means they can't land on any runway that is shorter than 1.67 times what the book says. Part 91 generally does not need to follow this requirement.

Mike C.

Nice video and nice landing Michael. That is a great resort and spectacular runway and the airplane turned out very nice. Citations are fantastic aircraft and business tools.

Operationally, I hope your customer is not going to base his airplane out of this field, although it may not even be possible since they have space constraints. He would also be highly restricted as stated in previous comments.


Unfactored, direct from the manual, aka certified landing distance.

For those who might not know, "factored" runway distances are those with extra margins built in. A typical margin is to multiply the unfactored distance by 1.67 to get the factored distance. Some operations, like part 135, require this, which means they can't land on any runway that is shorter than 1.67 times what the book says. Part 91 generally does not need to follow this requirement.

Mike C.

Let me introduce you to Mr. Tarver and his video above which is clearly not using a factored landing distance. If he was, then he wouldn't be able to land at that airport.

The implication from your post is that if you don't use factored distances you will be somehow subjected to extra punishment from the authorities. I do not believe this is the case.

The certified landing distances, unfactored, already contain substantial margins. They assume 50 ft TCH (which eats 1000 ft of runway before you even touch down), and no use of TRs. If you lower your TCH and use TRs, you improve on the book numbers substantially. Similarly, takeoff numbers have margins due to presumed engine failure at V1 and a 35 ft crossing height at runway end.

At this point, commentary above usually triggers some sort of lecture about "best practices" and the implication you will crash someday. I don't subscribe to those attitudes. Overruns are caused by excessive speed and poor technique, so make sure those are correct and you won't have any problems. Many of the overruns occur on runways which DO meet the factored distances, so that's no cure all, either.

In looking at runway overrun accidents, they are very rare for TR equipped airplanes. They usually happen to the newer non TR planes such as the CJs. Those airplanes lack the margins TRs provide. A CJ won't stop without brakes, a TR equipped airplane will, and I do this periodically. This suggests a lot of the admonishment comes from the characteristics of the newer airplanes being more sensitive to braking conditions and having less margin in the numbers.

As time goes by, my preference for the older TR equipped airplanes increases. They are simply much more versatile than the newer airplanes. I expected when I went from a turboprop to a jet that I'd loose access to shorter runways, but in reality, I have not lost any capability in that area. As long as the runway is dry and paved, however.

For example, I have visited KSGS, South St Paul, a few times recently, due to fuel price and proximity to my destination. At 4000 ft, it isn't particularly long for a jet. The locals seem pretty excited when I arrive and depart, they don't see jets all that often. Yet, I use about half the runway, so the airport is more than adequate.

Mike C.

Factored distances in this airport would not work under any circumstance. This airport is a special situation and it is allowed under Part 91. Mr. Tarver is perfectly capable and legal to fly into this field.

Your statement that factored distances should be disregarded all together if you are operating under Part 91 is erroneous - TRs or not.

This is probably the only time this airplane will land/take off here. I'll leave super light and cool; I've done it a few times before in the 501 and it's not a problem leaving; way less stressful than landing. At this airfield you always have the option of rolling off the end and pushing straight down if something bad happened like an engine failure.

My Grumman Widgeon which has a VREF of 70kts uses up more runway than a Citation landing/taking off here. Remember VREF is a 50 foot above threshold speed; I don't believe you should plan on using VREF as your touchdown speed. I know some people are teaching touching down at VREF. The Citation is a bit like a snake skidding in very flat if that's your chosen technique; it uses up a ton of runway doing this. I fully admit I got the nose a little high on this landing but that was a choice I made for aerodynamic braking and to get it stopped quickly.

New owner is going to keep her at "real" airport. Recently, the main accident with these little jets has been over-runs and the number 1 accident at this particular airport has been over-runs in everything from Bonanzas to King Airs.

Purpose of this video was to show a pretty jet landing at one of the prettiest (but most challenging) airports I've ever flown into.

Lastly, I don't recommend doing this for most people. The conditions have to be perfect!

Your statement implied you would be judged against the factored distance despite it having no regulatory basis for part 91:


I don't think this will be the case for part 91, so implying things will be "tougher" for you in this case isn't warranted.

Mike C.

Nailed it!

(Beautiful place (never been)).

Almost correct; the 135 80% rule (known as “Eligible on Demand”, see 135.4) is an OpSpec that you must apply for and be approved to use. There are a number of restrictions placed on it as well and they are quite restrictive - a big one is that it can’t be done single Pilot, but there are a host of others.

Many/most operators do not have the OpSpec so the 60% rule is the “norm”. I won’t speak to 91K operators since I have no experience in that arena.

Brad

Great aviating and great job on the paint scheme. Makes we want a 501.

I’m going to diverge from the micro analysis for a moment and just say that color is awesome!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WpO-A4eVw

Different perspective. I didn't look too hard for the TAWS mute on the Sandel system...annoying. Nose doesn't appear that high in real life. It's an intimidating airport and your sphincter should be very tight. I got a severe back spasm taxiing in from my muscle tightness; not the first time.

On a short field, you cannot go for a greaser; get it down and get it stopped. My recurrent DPE says you should always use this technique. He sees too many little jets sailing off the end of the runway.

Great video and nice job on the short landing. I noticed that 501 has TR's (which were really cool to watch in operation by the way). Do you know why Cessna "went away" from specifying those on their "smaller" modern jets? It seems like a really useful feature. Our company just had Textron bring an M2 demo for a test flight to a couple or our city pairs and while it is certainly a beautiful plane, it seems to me that's a big strike against it (along with the $5.3M list price).