Nextant Beechjet

[guido411]

Did anybody else read the latest BCA article about the 400XT and have a big problem with it? They landed this airplane at a 3400' runway (MYF) and landing distance under those circumstances would have been about 3100' by the book. It was a Part 91 trip but are many 91 operators using the entire runway length in their landing distance computations? If they are how have there not been more runway overruns?

The CP that flew the plane is a guy I once knew and I KNOW he is familiar with the 60% and 80% available landing distance rules. We are a Part 91 operator and we use the 60% or 80% rules so we would never park our airplane at MYF. It really makes it difficult when you try to run a conservative operation and then see (in real life or in print) people doing things like this.

Any 91 operators want to tell me I'm too conservative?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

I never worried or analyzed what others did with their aircraft...

I also know its easily possible to operate a Falcon 50/900/7x and a GLEX off of 3900ft under the right circumstances. Is it the best idea? maybe not in many peoples eyes (including mine) but it can be done and its not a huge deal.

We use 5000ft as the normal cutoff. Any other requests are given a hard look. It usually comes down to is it worth the risk and what other airports are close enough. usually the runway conditions/wind/weather/services etc make such requests hard to accomodate. Its hard to predict perfect conditions for arrival and departure, and how prepared is everyone to divert at the last minute..Decsion process and limitations should be addressed in your FOM/SMS.

Part 91 - be as conservative as you want, its your call....but I dont worry about what others do (not my business) and how it may question my decisions. Someone could take their Beechjet into a 2000ft grass trip for all I care. Never had a company/owner question me when I simply said I'm not comfortable doing something and give legitimate reasons why. I guess I am lucky.

Of course, 10,000ft ILS ruways aren't where we make our money, its decisons like the above and telling a very demanding person NO (with alternate options) that pay us the big bucks (lol)

 

[BoilerUP]

What exactly is the problem with a company's Chief Pilot demonstrating the maximum capabilities of an aircraft for an aviation writer doing a feature about their re-engineered Diamond jet?

I fly a straight-wing Citation with a typical Vref in the 105kt range and even having the performance wasn't comfortable flying into MYF last year, so we spent a couple hundred extra dollars and went to SAN instead. Doesn't mean that I can't fly in there, but being unfamiliar with the area and seeing it was near terrain I decided it wasn't worth the added risk of such a constrained runway. No big deal...

I have to ask though, why would an operator use 60% *and* 80% landing distances? Why not just one or the other?

 

[gern_blanston]

Any 91 operators want to tell me I'm too conservative?

Nope. Just don't worry too much about what others think.
Fly your mission the way it should be flown and don't worry about the pilot's worst enemy (the aircraft salesman) or the knuckleheads in magazine articles.

 

[con-pilot]

Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture here, but MYF has a 4500ft plus runway last I checked. I can see why a demo pilot in this case would use a shorter runway, why are the rest of you?

As with Gulfstream 200, I've operated a Falcon 900 and 50 off of runways less than 5,000 feet, but only after taking everything into consideration.

Hell, I even had a couple of operations on a less than 5,000 foot runway in a 727-100, EYW. Lightly loaded of course. It was doable and safe.

 

[guido411]

I have to ask though, why would an operator use 60% *and* 80% landing distances? Why not just one or the other?

You don't use both, it's one or the other. 60% unless Destination Airport Analysis (DAAP) is applied. If it's standard practice for 135 and 121 operators it's good enough to be SOP for me too.

 

[guido411]

Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture here, but MYF has a 4500ft plus runway last I checked. I can see why a demo pilot in this case would use a shorter runway, why are the rest of you?

Displaced for landing, 3401 available.

 

[SabreFlyR]

91K factored landing distance from the AFM in the Beechjet at 11,500 lbs is about 3000 feet with no slope or wind correction.

Considering that the NXT 400 is approx 350 lbs lighter than a standard Beechjet and if they landed with 1000lbs of fuel, then 11,500 would be a fairly accurate number with two pilots on board.

edit:

We used 4000 feet as a minimum when we operated the BJ. I had someone who wanted to buy it and base it at MYF and when I showed him the landing distance he decided that wasn't a good idea.

 

[jet2work]

Displaced for landing, 3401 available.

Not saying it's the safest or smartest thing to do, but the aircraft certification under part 25 has the aircraft crossing the threshold at 50 ft for landing, normal braking, no exceptional piloting skills etc.. So if the certification says it can do it, it most likely can be done without too much difficulty.

Far 91.129 only requires you to fly at or above the VASI glideslope until necessary for a safe landing. So if my interpretation is correct, nothing would prohibit the pilot from touching down on the numbers of the displaced threshold (in fact RWY 19 at KTEB is a great example of this). This would most certainly shorten the landing distance (if my math is correct, a 3 degree decent from 50 ft would put you 875 ft down the runway). I would need a compelling reason (like a cell tower or trees) to cross a displaced threshold on a short runway at 50ft. Additionally, Part 25 does not appear to allow the Beechjet credit for Thrust Reversers (I could be wrong about that). The aircraft does have them, and one could reasonably assume that they would shorten the distance. My guess is that the aircraft can do it no sweat.

If the book says the aircraft can do it in 3100 ft, and he is FAR 91, then hopefully the only person he hurts is himself or the owner who told him to go in there. Like others have said, I don't worry about what everyone else is doing. If this was a marketing article, obviously this was done for effect.

My bigger concern would be getting out of there with one pax and enough fuel to go anywhere. The runway weight bearing capacity at MYF is only 12,000 pounds for a single wheel aircraft. With an empty weight of about 10,500, that does not leave much capacity for fuel, pax, and bags. Explain that to the owner.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/1180665/L/

 

[caseyd]

Not saying it's the safest or smartest thing to do, but the aircraft certification under part 25 has the aircraft crossing the threshold at 50 ft for landing, normal braking, no exceptional piloting skills etc.. So if the certification says it can do it, it most likely can be done without too much difficulty.

Far 91.129 only requires you to fly at or above the VASI glideslope until necessary for a safe landing. So if my interpretation is correct, nothing would prohibit the pilot from touching down on the numbers of the displaced threshold (in fact RWY 19 at KTEB is a great example of this). This would most certainly shorten the landing distance (if my math is correct, a 3 degree decent from 50 ft would put you 875 ft down the runway). I would need a compelling reason (like a cell tower or trees) to cross a displaced threshold on a short runway at 50ft. Additionally, Part 25 does not appear to allow the Beechjet credit for Thrust Reversers (I could be wrong about that). The aircraft does have them, and one could reasonably assume that they would shorten the distance. My guess is that the aircraft can do it no sweat.

If the book says the aircraft can do it in 3100 ft, and he is FAR 91, then hopefully the only person he hurts is himself or the owner who told him to go in there. Like others have said, I don't worry about what everyone else is doing. If this was a marketing article, obviously this was done for effect.

My bigger concern would be getting out of there with one pax and enough fuel to go anywhere. The runway weight bearing capacity at MYF is only 12,000 pounds for a single wheel aircraft. With an empty weight of about 10,500, that does not leave much capacity for fuel, pax, and bags. Explain that to the owner.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/1180665/L/

Hey there jet2work...You've been in this business a long time... if I've got you figured out. And while I don't argue with you're premise I want to challenge the wisdom of "G/S or VASI to minimums, increase the VSI, re-establish a stabilized path to a runway spot 800' closer with ceiling and visibility complicating the maneuver."

Is that really how you want to get more comfortable with the data?

caseyd