Ahh, disagreements. That's what makes a venue such as PPRuNe so valuable, so we may explore our differences.
Mutt-jt-
I fully agree with the Part 25 numbers you quoted. No problem there. It's the APPLICATION of those numbers we seem to disagree on. Takeoffs and landings are not governed by Part. 25. They fall under the Part 121 rules.
121.195 determines your max TAKEOFF weight, even though it's heading is "Landing Limitations: Destination Airports."
Part 121.195 (a) and (b) state that "No person operating a turbine-engine-powered airplane MAY TAKE OFF THAT AIRPLANE at such a weight that", etc. It does NOT say that no person may LAND an airplane at a heavier weight.
121.195 (a) governs AC and LC limits, while 121.195 (b) governs the factored runway. I recently won an issue with the FAA on the operational application of 121.195 (b). They (from Nick Lacey's office) agreed that Landing Field Length as required under 121.195 (b) is NOT required once airborne.
Can we agree that AC and LC limits are NOT runway specific? If not runway specific, how can they address any obstacles for a specific runway? The weights would be the same making an approach towards the mountains, or making an approach away from the mountains. Simply being lighter than your AC/LC weight will NOT guarantee obstacle clearance on a missed approach! It will only guarantee a gradient, and that gradient may not be steep enough to miss the obstacles. It is up to the operator to publish engine-out procedures for obstacle clearance for engine-out takeoffs, and they can be used for an escape path in case of an engine-out missed approach.
It's important in this context to point out that you are not dispatched to specific RUNWAYS. You are dispatched to AIRPORTS. It is not necessary to obtain an ammended release if the planned runway changes while you are enroute.
[ 10 September 2001: Message edited by: quid ]