Chip would have you think I'm the only person who can do that. Of course, he is wrong about that. Any owner can apply relatively small amounts of effort to reduce costs. it is mostly about knowledge and not about actual effort, too.

The main thing keeping me out of a Piaggio is the extra $1.5M it would cost me to get one. That's a yearly capital expense that swamps my V operating costs, roughly $200K per year. I realize it is customary for aircraft owner to ignore those costs, but they are real none the less.


I'm in the "looks cool" camp on this one. It is a neat airplane. and maybe some day I will own one.

Mike C.

Are these balanced field/factored distances? What factor are you considering?

They are the figures in the AFM performance section with no adjustments.

If the Piaggio takes into account an engine failure at any point during the takeoff, and you start applying factors to that, the runway length numbers will be huge.

Mike C.

They are the figures in the AFM performance section with no adjustments.

If the Piaggio takes into account an engine failure at any point during the takeoff, and you start applying factors to that, the runway length numbers will be huge.

Mike C.

Wow, large Vref. I'm amazed at that. That's a lot of landing energy to get rid of.


Well, I don't have those any more, but my V numbers are better for zero flap runway performance.

At a very normal landing weight of 12,000 lbs, ISA, 0 MSL, that works out to 2772 ft, Vref 109 KIAS. That would be a ground roll of about 1800 ft.

Even at max landing weight of 15,200 lbs, 3444 ft, Vref 121 KIAS, ground roll 2500 ft.

Note the above are *without* thrust reverser use. Distances get shorter if I use them, which I would. They are sort of like having beta mode.

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by your zero flap runway performance. My MU2 would have beat them by a factor of two and my jet handily beats them without using reversers. The Piaggio is never going to be a champion short runway airplane, that's just not its thing.

Mike C.

They are the figures in the AFM performance section with no adjustments.

If the Piaggio takes into account an engine failure at any point during the takeoff, and you start applying factors to that, the runway length numbers will be huge.

Mike C.

Wow, large Vref. I'm amazed at that. That's a lot of landing energy to get rid of.


Well, I don't have those any more, but my V numbers are better for zero flap runway performance.

At a very normal landing weight of 12,000 lbs, ISA, 0 MSL, that works out to 2772 ft, Vref 109 KIAS. That would be a ground roll of about 1800 ft.

Even at max landing weight of 15,200 lbs, 3444 ft, Vref 121 KIAS, ground roll 2500 ft.

Note the above are *without* thrust reverser use. Distances get shorter if I use them, which I would. They are sort of like having beta mode.

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by your zero flap runway performance. My MU2 would have beat them by a factor of two and my jet handily beats them without using reversers. The Piaggio is never going to be a champion short runway airplane, that's just not its thing.

Mike C.

Neither are the Piaggio numbers.


If you follow the procedure in the manual, you are NOT a test pilot on every mission. You are not exploring uncharted areas of operation like a test pilot. You are following the procedure in the manual. Maintaining proper approach speed is the most basic thing a jet pilot has to do.


Define "not happy". You are vaguely implying there will be some enforcement action based on not using factored runway distances for an ordinary part 91 operator. I do not believe this will be the case. Can you show us an example of this?

Ultimately, if Piaggio and V are required to have the same abilities on takeoff, such as accel stop or accel go, then applying a factor on top of that affects both airplanes equally. The Piaggio numbers will be dreadful for accel stop, accel go, the V numbers have that already built in.

I'd like to point out that the AC you reference deals with the landing only. The AFM numbers are built around a 50 ft threshold height and not using the TRs. This means if you use a lower TCH and use TRs you best the numbers by quite a bit. So in some sense, my numbers are already factored since I have margins built into them.

91.1037 applies to fractional operators (think Net Jets). I'm not a fractional operator. It does not apply to me or to Piaggio operators.

The AC does say this:

Part 91 Recommendations. Preflight planning requirements for part 91 operators are governed by §§ 91.103 and 91.605. (Section 91.1037 is only applicable to part 91K operators.) Although not required by regulation, we recommend that part 91 operators and pilots calculate predeparture landing distance performance requirements based on the guidance contained in their AFM.

I am following the AFM, and that AC, BTW, which prescribes no factored distances for part 91 operation.

Mike C.

It isn't nearly as bad as I feared for 3 reasons: it flies higher, it flies faster, and the engines are more efficient than earlier 500 series.

My trip fuel usage is basically on par with a 501 for a much larger, faster airplane.

Now if you fly my V like some do, in the mid 30s MCT, 430 KTAS, balls to the wall, yes, the plane will gulp fuel like crazy.

So it really depends on how you fly it.

The Piaggio will be fantastic for fuel usage in comparison, no argument there.

Mike C.

I have a lot of trips of 300-375 nm so flying high wouldn’t be an option if I owned one. If you’re averaging 1000nm or more that would definitely help.

I have to disagree with you again.

There is nothing subjective about saying the P.180 is a cooler looking airplane - it's a FACT.

Mike - perhaps you missed this By flying a turbojet aircraft even under Part 91, you are expected to fly to a higher standard of professionalism and performance than the weekend Cherokee or Cessna driver.

This AC is directed to ALL professional crews - this is the way they are expected to fly - and it is for a reason.

I frankly don't see why you would argue against the wisdom of following professional standards and best practices - but once again - it is your choice - it is your airplane. If you decide to fly to a lower standard of safety it is entirely your prerogative.

Having said this, AIM Section 5-3-4(e)(3) — under Pilot Responsibilities When Conducting IFR Approaches — it recommends that pilots use factored landing distance values, especially for turbojet aircraft, to account for operational margins (like runway conditions, wind, weight, and potential errors), and the FAA references Advisory Circular 91-79A, which provides the same recommended landing distance factors.

Although you are not "legally required" to use factored distances, if you end up going off the end of the runway, the FAA will frown on your operational practices. But - hey - don't take my word for it - talk to the training center personnel giving you your 61.58 checks next time you visit them - or better yet - call your local FSDO and ask them what they think.

Even though recommendations aren't laws, in practice, you can be held accountable for ignoring them - especially when they reflect accepted safety practices - and even if it wasn't a violation of a regulation, the FAA can still take enforcement action (like suspending or revoking your certificate) if they conclude you acted carelessly or recklessly under FAR 91.13.

At the end of the day, it's my 2 cents - take it or leave it. I did not intend to offend you - if I did, sorry.

Yes, and your weekend Cherokee driver is just as much a professional pilot as anyone else. The AC does not distinguish between pilots. Can we stop the “pro” pilot turbine operator nonsense please? It just comes across as arrogant and is anti-safety.

Why are you not choosing a factor of 2.0 for all your operations? If 1.25 is good, 2.0 must be better, right?

Why are you not preaching this to the Piaggio operators? They don't even have to meet accel stop/go. Or are they not "pro" enough because they don't fly a jet?


Until you find me an actual example of someone getting busted for flying part 91 without using factored runway distances, I'm going to not put a lot of weight on it.

Plenty of "pro" pilots, using factored distances, have run off runways, seems like an epidemic lately. Maybe instead of feeling "safe" with longer runways, they should pay attention to the runway conditions and speed. The most dangerous thing in aviation is a feeling that you are safe.


I haven't ever made a flight which was fully legal, so this feels like an idle threat.

If the AFM says I need X distance and the runway is longer than X, I don't think that is careless or reckless. I took care, and I reckoned the distance.

Mike C.

Since you are light for a short trip, the climb rate is sparkling so you get to high altitude very quickly.

Using 14,000 lbs takeoff weight, climb to FL410 is 87 nm in 20 minutes, normal (2000 fpm) descent is 114 nm. So a 350 nm trip spends 150 nm in cruise at FL410. You spend very little time at low altitudes.


You don't have to get anywhere near those leg lengths to spend significant time at high altitudes.

Mike C.