Leadsled, yes we know that we won't make the landing distance written in the books.????
But it is also our duty to follow the rules and make it legal.????
Legality has now became a real part of our job, compare to what you might have know flying the 707 back in the old days...
Sir737,
Are you really serious in making that statement??
The requirement to operate legally has not changed, since a legal framework was put around aircraft, that goes right back to the 1920s, whatever the laws may be at the time.
"Legally" , what you have said above is that you have to operate your aircraft
in a manner that fits the definition of reckless operation of an aircraft, next up the criminal scale from negligent operation of an aircraft.
To suggest that you must operate an aircraft in a manner that fits the definition of reckless to stay "legal", is, if I may say so, legal nonsense.
Planning to operate on a runway where you know, in advance, you cannot stop, if that runway is required, is recklessness.
In every country under whose legal framework I have operated ( been licensed as a pilot and/or operated aircraft on that registry -- UK/US/AU/NZ plus a few others) reckless operation of an aircraft is a most serious criminal offense.
That probably goes a long way to explaining the confused thinking in much of this thread, you all need to adopt a rather wider meaning of "legal", as I have alluded to in earlier posts, where is mention the LEGAL responsibilities of the PIC. Those legal responsibilities are not merely theoretical, they are an every day reality, as, every now and again, a pilot finds out the hard way.
Just meeting the dispatch requirements (however badly they are constituted) in no way constitutes a PIC meeting his or her legal responsibilities for the flight.
As for "the old days" (SFAR 422B), my comments apply up to and including the B747-400, a long way remove, in terms of certified performance and acceptable performance data, from the B707/DC-8 days.
By the way, I am still flying.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I have a very nasty suspicion that differently derived distances (certification amendment number at time of certification) are being mixed up here, and landing distanced based on different criteria are being conflated and confused.