On a serious note, why is that? Is jet maintenance more scrupulously documented? Factory shops vs Ma and Pa? More required things at intervals, generating pro-forma paper? Do jets break more than MU2's? Did that jet have anything that would generate unusual amounts of paper?Comparing your new jet to your old MU2, 13 years of the MU2 has been under your stewardship, is there a difference in maintenance style that could account for some of that?

Were Jet shops using computerized records sooner than your MU2 shops? I know that using an electronic medical record generates great clouds of obfuscatory documentation per unit of useful info, with a corresponding expansion in number of "pages". The difference is easily a factor of 5. Maybe 10.

Is there a real difference in dispatch reliability, or AOG?

Or is there something about jetness that is really different than turbopropness?

I always suspected it has at least something to do with ATC not wanting jets declaring an emergency at 410 due to a mechanical failure and having to descend through all the flight levels below, causing havoc with the ATC system.

Also, it's simply more dangerous to have something go wrong at 410 versus 250 (e.g. pressurization) and it takes longer to descend and make an emergency landing.

Going back to initial paperwork, I had to get an LOA from FSDO to operate in RVSM airspace (pretty voluminous application and 45 days to get an existing plane that was already approved for RVSM so I could operate it.) Also MMEL for used aircraft. This was in addition to Type rating and training to get that rating. One really had to want to do it.

On a serious note, why is that? Is jet maintenance more scrupulously documented? Factory shops vs Ma and Pa? More required things at intervals, generating pro-forma paper? Do jets break more than MU2's? Did that jet have anything that would generate unusual amounts of paper?Comparing your new jet to your old MU2, 13 years of the MU2 has been under your stewardship, is there a difference in maintenance style that could account for some of that?

Were Jet shops using computerized records sooner than your MU2 shops? I know that using an electronic medical record generates great clouds of obfuscatory documentation per unit of useful info, with a corresponding expansion in number of "pages". The difference is easily a factor of 5. Maybe 10.

Is there a real difference in dispatch reliability, or AOG?

Or is there something about jetness that is really different than turbopropness?

I don't think you need that any more if ADS-B equipped (which you need above 10,000 ft anyways) per the new rules.

Am I misinformed?

Mike C.

I don't think you need that any more if ADS-B equipped (which you need above 10,000 ft anyways) per the new rules.

Am I misinformed?

Mike C.

I don't think you need that any more if ADS-B equipped (which you need above 10,000 ft anyways) per the new rules.

Am I misinformed?

Mike C.

Turboprops too! Go figure why... Probably because of legalities and increasing technocracy. A few years ago I ferried one of the last manufactured 1900D. The aircraft was 15 years old, one owner. The entire cargo compartment was filled with boxes of documents, and every seat in the cabin had two additional boxes. Yes, including all work orders, etc., etc.

The owner/operator in New Zealand where I took the aircraft had taken really good care of all their 1900s, the one I flew had absolutely no squawks. All the mechanics I met down under were real professionals and sad to see their aircraft go.

Flying in the Fl’s out of the country

Exactly the reason I just submitted my RVSM app today. Took a week just to get someone from the FSDO to answer a phone and give me an email to send it to. I hope it just does not sit in the cloud for weeks to come.

Turboprops too! Go figure why... Probably because of legalities and increasing technocracy. A few years ago I ferried one of the last manufactured 1900D. The aircraft was 15 years old, one owner. The entire cargo compartment was filled with boxes of documents, and every seat in the cabin had two additional boxes. Yes, including all work orders, etc., etc.

The owner/operator in New Zealand where I took the aircraft had taken really good care of all their 1900s, the one I flew had absolutely no squawks. All the mechanics I met down under were real professionals and sad to see their aircraft go.

Simply put, I think that's a yes, yes, and a yes. The takeoff planning gets more complicated when you are hot and high, and have an obstacle that exceeds your climb gradient during first and second segment climb. If that's the case, you need to back down your takeoff weight.

It’s all a big equation. From a pure book procedure, one sets full power with brakes on, then release. If you’re making full power, you’re not going to have an extended takeoff roll. The only way you won’t is if you’re not making your N1 values, in which case you abort. If engines spool up as anticipated, you’re going to reach V1 on schedule and balanced field length will be as planned. As far as what percentage of runway you use, it depends on the length of the runway, the gross takeoff weight, the runway elevation, the runway gradient, the air temperature, and the barometric pressure. Turbines aren’t ambiguous.

Of course, the length of the runway, the gross takeoff weight, the runway elevation, the runway gradient, the air temperature, and the barometric pressure (and wind direction/speed) all must be correctly taken into account. But mistakes can happen, and there have been several incidents in which one or more of these parameters was miscalculated.

Also consider the possibility of sticking brakes, underinflated tires, contamination on the runway, a sudden shift in wind, etc., all of which could extend your takeoff roll.

Would you be flying the 500/501 on a US license or a European one? I'm only familiar with the US requirements. How does Europe treat the SPE issue? Also, are there good places in Europe to get a 500/501 serviced?