Is this legal without AOC?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 54
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNPL
Thats very insulting full marks.
Just explain exactly what qualifies you to assess any pilot
had a great three paragraph reply, which was very witty and insulting and consequently deleted it cos to be honest I bit.....
Anyway when I figure out what the hell you are on, or indeed on about, I might take you to task and ask you to explain your last post until then once again keep your personal jibes to your self.
Thats very insulting full marks.
Just explain exactly what qualifies you to assess any pilot
had a great three paragraph reply, which was very witty and insulting and consequently deleted it cos to be honest I bit.....
Anyway when I figure out what the hell you are on, or indeed on about, I might take you to task and ask you to explain your last post until then once again keep your personal jibes to your self.
Last edited by G-SPOTs Lost; 18th Apr 2008 at 07:50. Reason: Bit then saw sense
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 54
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil
Indeed we do, applies across the board.This muppet comes on here and casts doubt about our safety standards and personal reputations which we take very seriously both on fixed wing and rotary fleet.
If what you say is true about FNPL (and im struggling to get my head around it) then peoples vested interests & true colours shine through.
My point is really simple, AOC does not equal safe or safer in all cases.
I have no vested interest, in Pub Transport AOC, Dodgy charter. Just interested in getting one of the countrys wealthiest men around safely and efficiently. When somebody comes on here and questions my ability to do so without even knowing my name or the operation, then that persons credibility just nose dives in my opinion.
Indeed we do, applies across the board.This muppet comes on here and casts doubt about our safety standards and personal reputations which we take very seriously both on fixed wing and rotary fleet.
If what you say is true about FNPL (and im struggling to get my head around it) then peoples vested interests & true colours shine through.
My point is really simple, AOC does not equal safe or safer in all cases.
I have no vested interest, in Pub Transport AOC, Dodgy charter. Just interested in getting one of the countrys wealthiest men around safely and efficiently. When somebody comes on here and questions my ability to do so without even knowing my name or the operation, then that persons credibility just nose dives in my opinion.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JUST COS ITS AOC DOES NOT MAKE IT SAFE
and
My point is really simple, AOC does not equal safe or safer in all cases.
and
My point is really simple, AOC does not equal safe or safer in all cases.
It would be foolish to generalise so much in flight safety, where we know the very best occasionally have mishaps. The argument from me, Phil (who I happen to know slightly, who is an AOC operator) and FNPL has been that an AOC is a system to apply minimum standards and to make someone legally responsible for those standards.
That is a minimum safety standard that the charterer can expect, which is not the case in an illicit charter. Certain areas are systemic, and will always match those standards. Training, maintenance, crewing levels and flight planning are areas that the CAA are guaranteed to look into on audits, and would be very hard for the company to fake. It used to be different if stories I have heard are true, but nowadays a light jet on an AOC will always have two line trained pilots, and cases of taking off seriously overloaded are rare. Cases where the runway is inadequate are unheard of, unlike the illicit charters. Even cases where the runway is too short for a landing from screen height with public transport safety factors are rare.
There is a standard, and while you are right that the standard is sometimes slipped from there are limits. That is better than the standards absent from non-AOC charters.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 54
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing wrong with my reading skills.
And then the U turn
All my posts have been to refute the above, I DONT CARE about dodgy charters in G550's, PA 34, Kingairs, 550's discuss it on here until you go blue. I do care about my own personal standards of safety and aircraft governance to my employer.
And then when taken to task about the above, all the best personality traits of this (apparent AOC accountable manger) persons character emerge
Which is why this I object to people having a swipe, especially from people who admittedly are
who seem to profess to know an awful lot about the law and flying.
LMS its all there perhaps you should commence reading a bit further back ?
Maybe regulating corporate pilots flying hours similar to CAP371, the aircraft being maintained and operated to a minimum level and crews having to be trained to AOC standards. Why should the corporate client have to accept a lesser level of safety?
Anyway, I'm bored of this now. We all know that dodgy dangerous illegal flights happen, and they hide behind the corporate banner. If some of you think this is acceptable, fine. I happen to think it is far from OK.
i just wish you would read my post, an digest all of it, and not just the bits that you disagree with. So in simple terms, I do not think for one moment that corporate operations are dodgy, or dangerous. What I do think dodgy or dangerous is the few out there who believe it is OK to operate public transport flights, without either an AOC or being a bona-fide corporate operation.
All my posts have been to refute the above, I DONT CARE about dodgy charters in G550's, PA 34, Kingairs, 550's discuss it on here until you go blue. I do care about my own personal standards of safety and aircraft governance to my employer.
And then when taken to task about the above, all the best personality traits of this (apparent AOC accountable manger) persons character emerge
Please please please tell me you are not a pilot. That would be very scary indeed.
lawyer - no, pilot - no
LMS its all there perhaps you should commence reading a bit further back ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-SPOT,
It is a fact that ilegal public transport flights are done and claimed to be corporate. The reason this is done is BECAUSE there are certain requirements that the CAA, in the interests of safety and accountability, require, and that non-AOC Ops get away without doing.
If you think that this is not true, then you are completely dillusional. You may well work for a bona fide corporate operation, but don't for one second think that all "private Ops" are run without a little corner cutting, otherwise, why would anyone operate without an AOC.
Interestingly, I was chatting to a freelance pilot last week who only worked private Ops because he "couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork etc".
Phil
It is a fact that ilegal public transport flights are done and claimed to be corporate. The reason this is done is BECAUSE there are certain requirements that the CAA, in the interests of safety and accountability, require, and that non-AOC Ops get away without doing.
If you think that this is not true, then you are completely dillusional. You may well work for a bona fide corporate operation, but don't for one second think that all "private Ops" are run without a little corner cutting, otherwise, why would anyone operate without an AOC.
Interestingly, I was chatting to a freelance pilot last week who only worked private Ops because he "couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork etc".
Phil
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 54
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil
That might be the case.
Once again I DONT CARE.
My operation is "bona fide" because I put a lot of effort in to make it so, hence I'm pissed at somebody broad brushing, hence me doggedly sticking to my guns about this whole thing about given day given aircraft given crew.
Case in point you have just brought a captain on from the chieftains onto the 200 and he's had line training, he's AOC legal but is he as safe as Barnesy on the same day. Yes or No? (possibly a bad example
)
To be perfectly honest my sentiments exactly having had a gutful.
What really used to annoy me was turning off at the first intersection having been forced to land with min fuel and my private counterparts getting off at the next exit with another hours flying under their belts. So much for AOC safety....
Add in individually negotiated salaries, company cars, first class training and new equipment and perhaps you might begin to agree why there is an amount of attraction to a good corporate gig as opposed to getting barked at by a TV celebrity because its probably not going to be the case that you/ops can get her into Northolt instead of Luton with an hours notice on a Bank Holiday Monday
One other point to discuss is that AOC safety margins and SOP's are there to account for the lowest common denominator in terms of crew ability, as quoted from a large bucket and spade chief pilot.
That might be the case.
Once again I DONT CARE.
My operation is "bona fide" because I put a lot of effort in to make it so, hence I'm pissed at somebody broad brushing, hence me doggedly sticking to my guns about this whole thing about given day given aircraft given crew.
Case in point you have just brought a captain on from the chieftains onto the 200 and he's had line training, he's AOC legal but is he as safe as Barnesy on the same day. Yes or No? (possibly a bad example
)
Interestingly, I was chatting to a freelance pilot last week who only worked private Ops because he "couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork etc".
What really used to annoy me was turning off at the first intersection having been forced to land with min fuel and my private counterparts getting off at the next exit with another hours flying under their belts. So much for AOC safety....
Add in individually negotiated salaries, company cars, first class training and new equipment and perhaps you might begin to agree why there is an amount of attraction to a good corporate gig as opposed to getting barked at by a TV celebrity because its probably not going to be the case that you/ops can get her into Northolt instead of Luton with an hours notice on a Bank Holiday Monday
One other point to discuss is that AOC safety margins and SOP's are there to account for the lowest common denominator in terms of crew ability, as quoted from a large bucket and spade chief pilot.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does an AOC mean you have to carry less fuel? Surely in the same aircraft, same load and crew the same fuel can be carried. Or are you suggesting that private aircraft can fly overloaded, as they don't need to keep load sheets for the CAA? Flying overweight is all very well until you have engine problems.
You are doggedly but pointlessly sticking to your guns, because you are having a completely different discussion to everyone else's. You might ensure that your operation is of a high standard, but that does not mean that you should be allowed to charter out your aircraft without oversight and legal responsibility required for an AOC, and complying with the crew experience, training, maintenance and FTL requirements. Therefore it is completely irrelevant to this thread how safe you are.
You are doggedly but pointlessly sticking to your guns, because you are having a completely different discussion to everyone else's. You might ensure that your operation is of a high standard, but that does not mean that you should be allowed to charter out your aircraft without oversight and legal responsibility required for an AOC, and complying with the crew experience, training, maintenance and FTL requirements. Therefore it is completely irrelevant to this thread how safe you are.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 54
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LMS
Once again I DONT CARE about the your isssues re Dodgy Charter
In the last 10 or so posts I have been accused of not having sufficient reading skills to be a pilot and that dodgy charters hide behind corporate operations - well I can read perfectly thanks and not this operation.
If you are accusing me of thread drift then we are all guilty
And public transport landing distances are factored which means that in effect AOC operators have less runway than there private counterparts - especially in the wet (After reading your post from yesterday shouldn't you know this? going on about runway lengths and screen heights?)
FNPL will explain - he's an AOC Expert
Once again I DONT CARE about the your isssues re Dodgy Charter
In the last 10 or so posts I have been accused of not having sufficient reading skills to be a pilot and that dodgy charters hide behind corporate operations - well I can read perfectly thanks and not this operation.
If you are accusing me of thread drift then we are all guilty
And public transport landing distances are factored which means that in effect AOC operators have less runway than there private counterparts - especially in the wet (After reading your post from yesterday shouldn't you know this? going on about runway lengths and screen heights?)
FNPL will explain - he's an AOC Expert
GS Lost
I've held back from becoming involved in what appears to have become a private squabble between two posters, but what exactly do you mean by your statement regarding landing distances?
AOC operators have more runway available in any given circumstance due to the factoring element surely? Are you saying that factored distances are not needed for the equally safe operation of a particular aircraft if it's a non-AOC corporate operation? Surely you use factored distances when delivering your wealthy owner to his destination, or is factoring a mere aggravating little piece of regulationary nonsense in your book?
I'm not 'having a go' at you here, just genuinely puzzled by your comment.
I've held back from becoming involved in what appears to have become a private squabble between two posters, but what exactly do you mean by your statement regarding landing distances?
AOC operators have more runway available in any given circumstance due to the factoring element surely? Are you saying that factored distances are not needed for the equally safe operation of a particular aircraft if it's a non-AOC corporate operation? Surely you use factored distances when delivering your wealthy owner to his destination, or is factoring a mere aggravating little piece of regulationary nonsense in your book?
I'm not 'having a go' at you here, just genuinely puzzled by your comment.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expressflight
I know of one private citation which used to be based at Elstree in London some 700 metres long.
The guy went in and out of this tricky airport light weight and to me it was complete madness. Madness because it was russian roulette and left no room for any error at all.
But private operations can use shorter runways than AOC operations and it is very much up to the pilot. Until something happens and the insurance claims are made.
pace
I know of one private citation which used to be based at Elstree in London some 700 metres long.
The guy went in and out of this tricky airport light weight and to me it was complete madness. Madness because it was russian roulette and left no room for any error at all.
But private operations can use shorter runways than AOC operations and it is very much up to the pilot. Until something happens and the insurance claims are made.
pace
Ah yes, Elstree!
Having at one time held an AOC for some eight years operating a fleet of 10 light twins, I seem to remembner we could operate the Aztec and Navajo from there, but not the Twin Com. Coming out of there in a Navajo was enough for me I recall.
The point I was trying to make is that how can corporate operations be as safe as AOC operations in this regard if 'raw' runway performance is the norm rather than factored distances. Would an owner not expect the safety factor to be as great as if he was on a public transport flight?
Having at one time held an AOC for some eight years operating a fleet of 10 light twins, I seem to remembner we could operate the Aztec and Navajo from there, but not the Twin Com. Coming out of there in a Navajo was enough for me I recall.
The point I was trying to make is that how can corporate operations be as safe as AOC operations in this regard if 'raw' runway performance is the norm rather than factored distances. Would an owner not expect the safety factor to be as great as if he was on a public transport flight?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obvuiously not! I have done some of the Grand Prix circuits in formula one.
Go to Spa and see the mass of Business jets parked up on Spa Formula 1 weekend and they are pretty big business jets in there.
We went to the much larger airport up the road :-)
pace
Go to Spa and see the mass of Business jets parked up on Spa Formula 1 weekend and they are pretty big business jets in there.
We went to the much larger airport up the road :-)
pace
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" I know of one private citation which used to be based at Elstree in London some 700 metres long."
The guy went in and out of this tricky airport light weight and to me it was complete madness. Madness because it was russian roulette and left no room for any error at all."
The same guy used to fly a 421 from there and I know which one he preferred. EFATO, no contest, landing, no contest. Citation much preferred. Also, no comments about the madness of operating a 421 from there, let alone a Twin Comm.
The guy went in and out of this tricky airport light weight and to me it was complete madness. Madness because it was russian roulette and left no room for any error at all."
The same guy used to fly a 421 from there and I know which one he preferred. EFATO, no contest, landing, no contest. Citation much preferred. Also, no comments about the madness of operating a 421 from there, let alone a Twin Comm.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G SPOTs
Then why are you posting on this thread? That is the subject of the thread, after all, and if you don't care then surely this is not the most relevant place to post your comments. You are entitled to start your own thread on any subject you do care about.
Expressflight
"Would an owner not expect the safety factor to be as great as if he was on a public transport flight?"
Ask someone at Fairoaks about the Citation V.
Then why are you posting on this thread? That is the subject of the thread, after all, and if you don't care then surely this is not the most relevant place to post your comments. You are entitled to start your own thread on any subject you do care about.
Expressflight
"Would an owner not expect the safety factor to be as great as if he was on a public transport flight?"
Ask someone at Fairoaks about the Citation V.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a word NO. He/she will say the aeroplane I paid 44 million for can do the take off and landing distances so that is where I want to go.
If the books say it will do it then it will.
I am sick of hearing from you clandestine AOC pilots, operators and brokers how AOC is safer as if you are concerned about pax safety. Your comments are only here because you lose business to people who are smart enough to read the law and use it. That is what the law is about: interpretation.
If your accountant didn't use the law to your advantage you would soon complain.
I have been in the briefing for a multiple aeroplane AOC charter where the pax would have taken all three A/C overweight. The CP's words were exactly this " well boys looks like we are going to have to fudge the figures today, where is that pax weight list?"
Did I do it? yes. Would I do it now? No. But I don't have to now. But there was a nice framed AOC on the wall.
There are many, many more.
Just cause you do a recurrent sim course only means you have done a recurrent sim course. It doesn't mean you won't mishandle an EFATO and tent-peg in any more than anyone else.
How many people do you know who fail recurrents? Almost none because the training organisation would lose business.
If the books say it will do it then it will.
I am sick of hearing from you clandestine AOC pilots, operators and brokers how AOC is safer as if you are concerned about pax safety. Your comments are only here because you lose business to people who are smart enough to read the law and use it. That is what the law is about: interpretation.
If your accountant didn't use the law to your advantage you would soon complain.
I have been in the briefing for a multiple aeroplane AOC charter where the pax would have taken all three A/C overweight. The CP's words were exactly this " well boys looks like we are going to have to fudge the figures today, where is that pax weight list?"
Did I do it? yes. Would I do it now? No. But I don't have to now. But there was a nice framed AOC on the wall.
There are many, many more.
Just cause you do a recurrent sim course only means you have done a recurrent sim course. It doesn't mean you won't mishandle an EFATO and tent-peg in any more than anyone else.
How many people do you know who fail recurrents? Almost none because the training organisation would lose business.
Last edited by pilotbear; 19th Apr 2008 at 21:42.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality is that the CAA and other regulatory authorities have set a performance that statistically should show "acceptable levels of fatality" (a direct quote from my old FOI.
You corporate guys use your own levels of safety to have "acceptable levels of fatality", we just have different ideas on how many dead people is OK!
Phil
You corporate guys use your own levels of safety to have "acceptable levels of fatality", we just have different ideas on how many dead people is OK!
Phil
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 54
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Express flight yes indeed by all means accuse me of thread drift - sincere apologies for the squablling, I'll stand by all my comments on here or delete them if I respond a bit too passionately. Just not acceptable to broadbrush people or groups of operators simply because they dont NEED an AOC.
If we did need an AOC we would just get one and legally nick your charters and afford to write 1/2 million off against his tax bill - then you would all be moaning more as we were doing transatlantic charters at 1800 quid an hour
My FMC's tell me what the aircraft will stop in and then factor that figure for AOC distances.
So 1000ft becomes 1920ft wet, if Ive got 1700 and reversers I am totally unworried. Obviously if we go deep due wx then we go around and do it again. Random figures by the way.
If I tell the boss we are going to Shannon instead of Eniskillin then understandably he will be pissed especially when I turned of at the 1/2 way point last time.
LMS
Yep ask anybody about the 560 at fairoaks, was flown by a very good CP and accountable manager for an AOC operator who retired recently. Unsafe AOC operator or dodgy corporate pilot??? or did he just get unlucky.
There is an Excel into wellsbourne weekly, it does very well. These Light jets can go and stop very well its the accelerate stop case that is worrying.
Happy to ceasefire on the squablling, Pilot bear very reasonable post.
CJBoy missed your post hows the CJ?
If we did need an AOC we would just get one and legally nick your charters and afford to write 1/2 million off against his tax bill - then you would all be moaning more as we were doing transatlantic charters at 1800 quid an hour
My FMC's tell me what the aircraft will stop in and then factor that figure for AOC distances.
So 1000ft becomes 1920ft wet, if Ive got 1700 and reversers I am totally unworried. Obviously if we go deep due wx then we go around and do it again. Random figures by the way.
If I tell the boss we are going to Shannon instead of Eniskillin then understandably he will be pissed especially when I turned of at the 1/2 way point last time.
LMS
Yep ask anybody about the 560 at fairoaks, was flown by a very good CP and accountable manager for an AOC operator who retired recently. Unsafe AOC operator or dodgy corporate pilot??? or did he just get unlucky.
There is an Excel into wellsbourne weekly, it does very well. These Light jets can go and stop very well its the accelerate stop case that is worrying.
Happy to ceasefire on the squablling, Pilot bear very reasonable post.
CJBoy missed your post hows the CJ?
Pilotbear
"......as if you are concerned about pax safety."
Well, it may surprise you but, yes, actually pax safety was one of my concerns, as it was for our crews. I ran an outfit that I was proud of and my pride did not allow me to cheat on my customers and that is exactly what I would have been doing by fiddling the figures.
Call me pious if you like (and you probably will) but that's just the way I am and we still ran a profitable operation and a safe one. Sure, I was annoyed if a CPL poached one of our clients and hired an aircraft to fly them in and once, only once, I called the CAA and suggested they ramp check a certain aircraft on its arrival at GLA.
G-Spot Lost
I assume from you last post that you do actually factor the FMC figure to some degree so that is fair enough, but do the majority of corporate owners actually know there is a difference between private and AOC LDRs for example? I doubt it.
"......as if you are concerned about pax safety."
Well, it may surprise you but, yes, actually pax safety was one of my concerns, as it was for our crews. I ran an outfit that I was proud of and my pride did not allow me to cheat on my customers and that is exactly what I would have been doing by fiddling the figures.
Call me pious if you like (and you probably will) but that's just the way I am and we still ran a profitable operation and a safe one. Sure, I was annoyed if a CPL poached one of our clients and hired an aircraft to fly them in and once, only once, I called the CAA and suggested they ramp check a certain aircraft on its arrival at GLA.
G-Spot Lost
I assume from you last post that you do actually factor the FMC figure to some degree so that is fair enough, but do the majority of corporate owners actually know there is a difference between private and AOC LDRs for example? I doubt it.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 54
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xprsflt
Runway requirements used to be a question in the old CAA exams for CPL's and ATPL's, Im sure they will have incorporated them into JAR.
It would probably be the case that in many illegal charters an AOC holder has already been approached to do a certain flight and the client has been told no full stop or has been asked to offload people. He then finds somebody else to do it more often or not in the same kind of aircraft to the same destination.
Please understand that these factors are no doubt there for a reason but are very very punitive, my original quote of multiplying the raw ldr by 1.92 is accurate for a wet runway but lets not forget that its the raw WET figure you are multiplying it by so the CAA or whichever regulatory authority of your pleasing are in effect telling you need double what you actually need to stop. No problem with Nice or Malaga but a rainy gloucester in a citation - forget it. In steps mr dodgy...........
Just to put things into perspective on a FAR/JAR 25 aircraft your raw ldr does not include Thrust Reverse. So in effect the LDR is factored before you start.
not sure about turboprop Phil will know, last b200 I flew in threw me against the straps and stopped in an amazingly short space
Accelerate stop distances did not include T/R unil Airbus had to lobby to have the A340's wet figures to include thrust reverse otherwise it would not have made it into service as it could never have legally gone anywhere public transport!
I think you need to differentiate between "corporate" owners and newbie cpl's in senecas here. If anybody has completed a turbine type rating from a beech 90 to a citation I thinks its fairly safe to assume that the pilot knows that AOC ldrs are factored to hell and back which is why he has had the phone call from a freind of a freind to take some other freinds flying.
WRT FMC's I can adjust the factors within the FMS so I get presented with Raw (w/o reverse) and factored 1.67 dry or 1.92 wet. When I click on the runway in use it compares the aircraft weight to the LDR available and advises me against the factored figure. If im going in somewhere short and I get the warning I take great pleasure in telling the boss that we would have gone elsewhere due runway requirement and should he follow through with his threat to put me and the aircraft to harder work on somebodys AOC then he would have had to endure a 60 minute drive!!!!!
Runway requirements used to be a question in the old CAA exams for CPL's and ATPL's, Im sure they will have incorporated them into JAR.
It would probably be the case that in many illegal charters an AOC holder has already been approached to do a certain flight and the client has been told no full stop or has been asked to offload people. He then finds somebody else to do it more often or not in the same kind of aircraft to the same destination.
Please understand that these factors are no doubt there for a reason but are very very punitive, my original quote of multiplying the raw ldr by 1.92 is accurate for a wet runway but lets not forget that its the raw WET figure you are multiplying it by so the CAA or whichever regulatory authority of your pleasing are in effect telling you need double what you actually need to stop. No problem with Nice or Malaga but a rainy gloucester in a citation - forget it. In steps mr dodgy...........
Just to put things into perspective on a FAR/JAR 25 aircraft your raw ldr does not include Thrust Reverse. So in effect the LDR is factored before you start.
not sure about turboprop Phil will know, last b200 I flew in threw me against the straps and stopped in an amazingly short space
Accelerate stop distances did not include T/R unil Airbus had to lobby to have the A340's wet figures to include thrust reverse otherwise it would not have made it into service as it could never have legally gone anywhere public transport!
I assume from you last post that you do actually factor the FMC figure to some degree so that is fair enough, but do the majority of corporate owners actually know there is a difference between private and AOC LDRs for example? I doubt it.
WRT FMC's I can adjust the factors within the FMS so I get presented with Raw (w/o reverse) and factored 1.67 dry or 1.92 wet. When I click on the runway in use it compares the aircraft weight to the LDR available and advises me against the factored figure. If im going in somewhere short and I get the warning I take great pleasure in telling the boss that we would have gone elsewhere due runway requirement and should he follow through with his threat to put me and the aircraft to harder work on somebodys AOC then he would have had to endure a 60 minute drive!!!!!