Narrative:

I landed a lear 31A at F82. Not a real safety issue if everything goes well; the airplane is light (ours was: 14000 pounds); the temperature is cool -- it was (22 degrees C by ATIS from lubbock) and you land at the beginning of the runway. Same thing applies to departure (departure weight 13000 pounds; 22 degrees 3200 ft elevation). In retrospect; I think I would go into lubbock international instead. There are too many human performance considerations. The boss's need to be on time should never cloud judgement even if he isn't pressing the issue. Training in short field operations and currency of the training is important. Equipment age impacts landing and takeoff distances. Ours was relatively new; however; older equipment performance deteriorates and many times will not accomplish chart performance conditions. Atmospheric conditions are very important. Basically all we as pilots have is reported information; sometimes it is nearest airfield. Honest mistakes occur based on available information coupled with decision making skills. I was fortunate: temperature information was accurate; and field elevation was 3200 ft. No adverse events occurred. Landing roll was predicted at less than 3000 ft and takeoff at 3200 ft and change: legal performance factors setting a trap for disaster. Brake failure; reverser deployment uneven; temperatures not actual; pilot proficiency and background inappropriate. I am fortunate to have extensive military training in short-field assault operations but I think in retrospect the choice was a mistake; one I will not make again. My background would not have saved a catastrophe if a chain of events leading to faulty mechanical performance; poor landing/takeoff technique; or just inaccurate environmental information had led down the path of destruction. Being perfectly legal could still lead to perfectly dead! Perhaps we in high performance equipment (and that includes part 23 equipment) should have some artificial limits in place. Ie; minimum runway length for LJ31's should be about 3800 ft; period. I know it will land on 3000 ft and give you change and takeoff on 3000 ft and give you change; but just because you can; should you? Military flying demands accepting risks but does the civilian world need to take the same risks. My answer is categorically no and I'll be limiting future operations to 3800 ft or greater. I hope this highlights a problem lurking out there; just waiting to bite someone.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A LEAR 31 PLT LANDS AND DEPARTS ON A VERY SHORT RWY AND DECIDES IT WAS TOO SHORT FOR COMFORT.

Narrative: I LANDED A LEAR 31A AT F82. NOT A REAL SAFETY ISSUE IF EVERYTHING GOES WELL; THE AIRPLANE IS LIGHT (OURS WAS: 14000 LBS); THE TEMP IS COOL -- IT WAS (22 DEGS C BY ATIS FROM LUBBOCK) AND YOU LAND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE RWY. SAME THING APPLIES TO DEP (DEP WT 13000 LBS; 22 DEGS 3200 FT ELEVATION). IN RETROSPECT; I THINK I WOULD GO INTO LUBBOCK INTL INSTEAD. THERE ARE TOO MANY HUMAN PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS. THE BOSS'S NEED TO BE ON TIME SHOULD NEVER CLOUD JUDGEMENT EVEN IF HE ISN'T PRESSING THE ISSUE. TRAINING IN SHORT FIELD OPS AND CURRENCY OF THE TRAINING IS IMPORTANT. EQUIP AGE IMPACTS LNDG AND TKOF DISTANCES. OURS WAS RELATIVELY NEW; HOWEVER; OLDER EQUIP PERFORMANCE DETERIORATES AND MANY TIMES WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH CHART PERFORMANCE CONDITIONS. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. BASICALLY ALL WE AS PLTS HAVE IS RPTED INFO; SOMETIMES IT IS NEAREST AIRFIELD. HONEST MISTAKES OCCUR BASED ON AVAILABLE INFO COUPLED WITH DECISION MAKING SKILLS. I WAS FORTUNATE: TEMP INFO WAS ACCURATE; AND FIELD ELEVATION WAS 3200 FT. NO ADVERSE EVENTS OCCURRED. LNDG ROLL WAS PREDICTED AT LESS THAN 3000 FT AND TKOF AT 3200 FT AND CHANGE: LEGAL PERFORMANCE FACTORS SETTING A TRAP FOR DISASTER. BRAKE FAILURE; REVERSER DEPLOYMENT UNEVEN; TEMPS NOT ACTUAL; PLT PROFICIENCY AND BACKGROUND INAPPROPRIATE. I AM FORTUNATE TO HAVE EXTENSIVE MIL TRAINING IN SHORT-FIELD ASSAULT OPS BUT I THINK IN RETROSPECT THE CHOICE WAS A MISTAKE; ONE I WILL NOT MAKE AGAIN. MY BACKGROUND WOULD NOT HAVE SAVED A CATASTROPHE IF A CHAIN OF EVENTS LEADING TO FAULTY MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE; POOR LNDG/TKOF TECHNIQUE; OR JUST INACCURATE ENVIRONMENTAL INFO HAD LED DOWN THE PATH OF DESTRUCTION. BEING PERFECTLY LEGAL COULD STILL LEAD TO PERFECTLY DEAD! PERHAPS WE IN HIGH PERFORMANCE EQUIP (AND THAT INCLUDES PART 23 EQUIP) SHOULD HAVE SOME ARTIFICIAL LIMITS IN PLACE. IE; MINIMUM RWY LENGTH FOR LJ31'S SHOULD BE ABOUT 3800 FT; PERIOD. I KNOW IT WILL LAND ON 3000 FT AND GIVE YOU CHANGE AND TKOF ON 3000 FT AND GIVE YOU CHANGE; BUT JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN; SHOULD YOU? MIL FLYING DEMANDS ACCEPTING RISKS BUT DOES THE CIVILIAN WORLD NEED TO TAKE THE SAME RISKS. MY ANSWER IS CATEGORICALLY NO AND I'LL BE LIMITING FUTURE OPS TO 3800 FT OR GREATER. I HOPE THIS HIGHLIGHTS A PROB LURKING OUT THERE; JUST WAITING TO BITE SOMEONE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.