Because Larry Ellison is a billionaire who has literally bought the San Mateo County govt. In addition to the above, he also built a fantastically expensive house ($200 million) and while he is supposed to pay property tax on the value of the property, he then lobbied the county tax assessor to lower the value because it has "limited market appeal".
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2008/0 ... says-panel
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2008/0 ... ide-estate

Because Larry Ellison is a billionaire who has literally bought the San Mateo County govt. In addition to the above, he also built a fantastically expensive house ($200 million) and while he is supposed to pay property tax on the value of the property, he then lobbied the county tax assessor to lower the value because it has "limited market appeal".
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2008/0 ... says-panel
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2008/0 ... ide-estate

Seems like runway length is one of them.

Mike C.

I have met Larry Ellison years ago on the ramp at KSAV. He was super nice and let me take a gander at his G-V! I ended up walking off with an Oracle ballcap from the pilot, which I gave to a friend who was a DBA. Larry also tipped the line guy $100 at least once. I met his passengers briefly as I got off the plan eand they handed me their luggage. I had a good laugh with the co-pilot and when I carried the bags to the back.

We can hate on the guy but he grew a phenomenal company, was super nice the times I saw him on the ramp. Plus, the golden rule applies - Those with the gold make the rules.

The other thing was that Mr. Ellison's pilots always parked on the South Ramp to fuel with a small FBO and didn't use Signature.

I wish he was as nice to me. I went out to Tuscon for tech support on our system that was being installed on his Global Express. They wanted me to fly on the operational flight and once we were in the air told me they were not ending their flight in Tuscon but continuing to the home base in Stockton, CA, per "the boss". They did take care of the rental car in Tuscon and had a car drive me to SFO to fly home, but it was a big surprise to drop on someone at the last minute.

From my understanding the S-12.5 listed in the AFD isn’t an aircraft limitation or airport maximum allowable weight. I operated an Ultra out of KOJC which once had a S-12.5 for their runway. We called the airport and said we could land but we assume responsibility for any damage to the runway. We accepted the risk and landed softly.

I know of a PC-24 that uses KSQL. What I’m not clear on is since the dual main weight bearing capacity is omitted (for KSQL), must you call management for permission? For what it’s worth, the PC-24 has less weight per tire than the PC-12 so in reality there would be no issue.

Here is what the AFD says about weight bearing capacity.

The runway weight bearing rating is not the same as a prohibition:

ARPT RSTRD BY ARPT OPR TO ACFT WITH MAX CERTD WT OF 12500 LBS OR LESS.

That's not about runway weight bearing.

KSQL has the same runway weight bearing rating, S 12.5, but no explicit prohibition, so maybe more wiggle room at KSQL.

It does appear operators do operate over 12,500 lbs at KSQL with some regularity.

Mike C.

The early MU2 procedures were dangerous, rotate and initial climb right at Vmc. Produced fantastic numbers, but with no safety margin.

About 1984, they changed the procedures and the charts. Now they rotate about 10 knots over Vmc and aim for about 20 knots over by 50 ft. Naturally, this lengthens the takeoff. But even beyond that, they manipulated the takeoff charts to provide even more margin. The MU2 takeoff charts are often so far from reality that experienced MU2 pilots can and do operate on runways shorter than the charts say. That's the only way you could operate out of KSQL, for example.

I did a fairly detailed study of takeoff distance with my airplane and I often beat the charts by 1000 ft using the chart prescribed technique.

I thought I would have to give up runway performance when I bought my jet, but actually, there really isn't any runway length where the C560V can't go that the MU2 could, given the same mission (range, cabin load). And my numbers are with an engine failure on takeoff and the MU2 numbers never were.

The places my MU2 can go that my C560V cannot are turf runways (AFM limitation) and those that prohibit over 12,500 lbs (like KPAO). These are both legal limitations and not operational ones.

Cessna is not above monkeying with the chart numbers, too. Here are my takeoff distances versus weight and flap settings:

Very clearly, Cessna set a lower limit regardless of what the plane will do given the flat line over much of the weight range. We all know dropping 2000 lbs will make the plane perform better, but the charts say not. The odd part is that flaps 7 is shorter runway length than flaps 15 in the manipulated section (which doesn't make sense) and the reverse as you get heavier (which makes sense).

Mike C.

"The early MU2 procedures were dangerous, rotate and initial climb right at Vmc. Produced fantastic numbers, but with no safety margin."

I agree completely with the above. NO margin for error
Also in those days anyone with a multi engine ticket could jump right in.
In hind sight that was a mistake

I found the high and hot on the N model I flew to be very limiting on SE climb
At about 4,000 msl I was at 10,300 lbs for no SE climb rate in the summer.
Very hard to convince the owner of that fact It did great with both turning

Bikes fit in Piaggio with wheels on. Will say the car on other end was a different story.

None of my bike fleet has quick releases anymore. Big cabin and aisle even allowed me to keep pedals on.

I’ve been doing same thing! Didn’t take a pic, but had 2 road bikes (fully assembled) in the cabin and one with wheels off in the baggage the other day. Plus 4 people (including pilot).

Here were my test loadings.

edit: two in the back cabin was snug. Would have been better without the sink. Also would be better without bike pedals, which are pretty easy to remove.

Is removing seats a prohibitive affair?

Yes, somewhat. For one thing they are kinda big and heavy, and a bit hard to muscle out by oneself. Would need a helper.

Yes, somewhat. For one thing they are kinda big and heavy, and a bit hard to muscle out by oneself. Would need a helper.

Rented a Yeti in Sedona AZ - sweet ride