Yes, and your weekend Cherokee driver is just as much a professional pilot as anyone else. The AC does not distinguish between pilots. Can we stop the “pro” pilot turbine operator nonsense please? It just comes across as arrogant and is anti-safety.

No - you did not use factored distances which is a best practice - in an overrun incident you will be found careless and reckless - but once again you do whatever you please - if you were a Part 135 or Part 121 operator you'd be written up on the spot - since you are Part 91, this won't happen until you run off the end of the runway and in the best of cases just bend your airplane.

Looks like you guys got EIS approved

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=237682&view=unread#unread

Nice option for the fleet. One more step.

Cmoooonn RVSM conversion to Garmin …..I hate those Collins instruments.

GFC700 would be nice but remains a dream.

[/quote]No - you did not use factored distances which is a best practice - in an overrun incident you will be found careless and reckless - but once again you do whatever you please - if you were a Part 135 or Part 121 operator you'd be written up on the spot - since you are Part 91, this won't happen until you run off the end of the runway and in the best of cases just bend your airplane.[/quote]

Ummm nope you are wrong Alex. If you used the charts to determine Accelerate Stop distance then ran off the end ,,,,,,an advisory circular (no matter how well intended ) would not control and would have no bearing in an investigation.

None.

No FAR stipulates this and in my few years as an AA check airman this was never discussed.

Typical Part 121 charts stipulate landing distances based on existing conditions which would take into account any runway contamination, operational aircraft limitations or NOTAMS. These are found in the dispatch release.

A/S or A/G charts also have side riders which discuss the same thing.

An AC circular is just informational info from the FAA. IT HAS NO REGULATORY WEIGHT.

This is contrary to current ALAR training and FAA/NTSB guidance. Perhaps you can use a refresh: https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/fil ... lf/867.pdf

If you want examples of enforcement actions by the FAA due to failure to perform landing distance assessment by a crew, I am sure there is plenty of material available to show the FAA/NTSB and ICAO are taking this issue seriously as it is the No. 1 cause of corporate jet aircraft accidents.

Hello All- Just an FYI…we have for sale an HF-System KHF 990 for P180 Avanti II, complete kit with Antenna and Coupler. If anyone has questions, let me know.
We also just signed another P180 acquisition agreement in the event anyone has recently decided to consider selling. Thanks!

Bryon Mobley
Wetzel Aviation, Inc.
Bryon@wetzelaviation.com
(303)517-4822

Proline 21 in Avanti II is seamless and absolutely wonderful.
Took me a while.
Proline 21 clicks wif me small brain.

btw....
I might crash very soon

In the SIM

That won't be due to using the actual distances, it will be due to not doing the procedure right, wrong speed, etc. I find it unlikely any part 91 operator will get written up simply for not using factored distances. If that was the case, Mr Ellison's crew, who are pro pilots, not an amateur like me, flying his CJ4 out of KSQL would be written up constantly.

As a part 91 operator, I can use the data provided by the OEM to judge my runway needs. Those numbers already contain margins beyond what the plane will actually do, roughly a 1000 ft in those numbers is not touching the runway.

You can preach about "best practice" and "jets are different", but that's an opinion and judgment, not regulation. Just because someone else doesn't do what you do doesn't make them unsafe.

In comparing to a Piaggio, I am FAR safer using my unfactored numbers than they are using their numbers. If I wanted to gain more access to shorter runways, buying a Piaggio isn't the way to do it over my V.

Mike C.

No - you did not use factored distances which is a best practice - in an overrun incident you will be found careless and reckless - but once again you do whatever you please - if you were a Part 135 or Part 121 operator you'd be written up on the spot - since you are Part 91, this won't happen until you run off the end of the runway and in the best of cases just bend your airplane.[/quote]

Ummm nope you are wrong Alex. If you used the charts to determine Accelerate Stop distance then ran off the end ,,,,,,an advisory circular (no matter how well intended ) would not control and would have no bearing in an investigation.

None.

No FAR stipulates this and in my few years as an AA check airman this was never discussed.

Typical Part 121 charts stipulate landing distances based on existing conditions which would take into account any runway contamination, operational aircraft limitations or NOTAMS. These are found in the dispatch release.

A/S or A/G charts also have side riders which discuss the same thing.

An AC circular is just informational info from the FAA. IT HAS NO REGULATORY WEIGHT.[/quote]

In the aircraft certification world, AC's are often treated by the FAA as having regulatory weight. If something different is proposed, the burden is on the applicant, which can be pretty difficult.

Edit to add: It gets even worse when the regulation says to minimize the hazrd, such as rotor non-containment or flammable fluid fire protection. Lots of discussions, issue papers, etc. over the years.

It is the FAA way of making rule without making rule.

In this case, the AC says, for part 91, to use book figures.

"Although not required by regulation, we recommend that part 91 operators and pilots calculate predeparture landing distance performance requirements based on the guidance contained in their AFM."

So I am following the AC when I use book figures. The claim I was not following the AC is wrong.

Mike C.