How in hell do you come to a safety factor of 67%
Well ACMS, I may be going out on a limb here but I got the impression you had perhaps learnt to fly in Australia, if I am wrong about that then I apologise. If I am correct then you may recall CAO 20.7.1B, it outlines the performance requirements governing runway use in normal conditions. Here is an excerpt;
11 Landing distance required
11.1 For subparagraph 5.1 (a), the landing distance for a jet-engined aeroplane is:
(a) for an aeroplane engaged in regular public transport operations when landing on a dry runway, or in charter operations when landing on a dry or wet runway — 1.67 times the distance required to bring the aeroplane to a stop on a dry runway
If I recall from the A380 Landing Performance Application there would be 2 options for deriving landing distance, 'Enroute' and 'Dispatch'. The 'dispatch' figure would need to be factored. Ie. increased by 67%.
Now I was not aware what figure you were quoting and I assumed it was the dispatch figure. Even if you were not, it is a legal requirement to comply with this rule so that buffer must be available if you are to attempt a landing on the runway. Albeit this figure is derived from a non standard landing technique.
Again I acknowledge these are Australian rules and we are talking about foreign carriers but I have neither the time nor inclination to research the equivalent FAA, JAR or Hong Kong legislation.
404 Titan;
Your approach to the decision is EXACTLY what I would hope all pilots would do. I completely agree with what you said in terms of the decision making process and your right to reject the runway.
It is the carriers or pilots who appear to just flatly refuse to land on the shorter runway in ALL circumstances that infuriate me (and I think others). And anecdotally there seem to be a few out there and possibly on this forum too.