Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Question for Hawker drivers

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web


Well-known member
Nov 27, 2001
Are the landing distances listed in Tab data padded by 60%? I was reading through the performance data in the performance manual and it says that the landing data on these specific charts already add 60% to conform with 135 and 121. If this is the case, do you subtract 60% from the landing distance when calculating the requirement for landing within 60%(115%) of the effective runway length to meet this regulation(i.e. 5000 feet of runway, 60% equals 3000 feet to land within and Tab data @ 17000 requires 4010 feet. Subtracting the 60% from 4010 allows you to land within 2406 feet meeting the 3000 foot restirction.)? Thank you to any and all replies.
Tab data is 135 runway required so actual landing distance is 60% of tab data which takes into account touching down at the TDZ markers, max brakes, lift dump but no thrust reverse. At low to mid weights it should be under 3000' with tab data showing 4500-5000' required
Can you touchdown and stop a Hawker in less than 3000 feet, the answer is YES-no problem.....even at max landing weight.
I’m still not sure exactly what you’re asking, but here goes.

The first answer, if you read the explanations buried somewhere in the BAe charts, is that they do indeed include the 60% correction – they refer specifically to the two FARS in 121 and 135 that require the 60% correction. This is from the FSI training manual on “Runway Required”, and is probably what you’re looking for:

“…Enter the runway required (4,200 feet) in the worksheet. Remember, this is the runway required for Part 121 and 135. To find the gross landing distance from 50 feet, multiply by 60%. Enter the result (2,520 feet) in the worksheet as the gross landing distance. This distance is based on being 50 feet over the landing threshold at VREF, with the engines at idle. The landing is made within 800 feet of the threshold, and maximum braking and lift dump are applied on a smooth, dry runway. The use of thrust reversers, if installed, is not assumed in accordance with the operational regulations.”

Anyway, if I understand your question, you're reading too much into the correction stuff – whatever’s in the TAB is already corrected for 60% so it’s good for 135 ops, and therefore also automatically good for 91 ops. With a Hawker, all you do is read the TAB; if the TAB says 4010 feet, that’s all you need though under ideal conditions you could actually stop in much less.

And you never need to make any corrections to the actual runway length (but if you did, the 2406 feet would be within the 3000 feet, as you posted).

If the runway were wet, then you multiply the TAB data by 115%, assuming your operating under Part 135, and that has to be less than the actual runway length. You don’t have to do that under Part 91, of course, but it’s still a good idea.

Now, if you’re flying under Part 91, you have the option of using a runway shorter than the TAB data, down to 60% of the TAB data, or 2406 feet in your example. We always stayed with the TAB data though, since that gave us a pretty good cushion, and you need some over the minimum anyway. Besides, the Hawker family stops so well with those big brakes, maxarets, and lift dump that the 121/135 landing distances are still very short – like TurboS7 and flydog posted, it’s very much possible and even routine to land in under 3000 feet, and even at 6000 ft MSL and MLW the HS125–700 still stops in under 5150 feet, including the 60% cushion, at the WAT-limited temperature. I don’t think I’d want to aim for anything less at a 6000-foot elevation in a jet of any kind; I certainly wouldn’t want to aim for the 3100 foot Part 91 minimum.

Hope this helps.
Last edited:

Latest resources