"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Newps" wrote in message
news:6wM_b.396854$na.764749@attbi_s04...
What, you wouldn't? Why should I wait for someone to clear the runway
if there is enough room for me to land behind him?

The same reason you take more fuel than the bare minimum, that you clear
obstacles by more than the bare minimum, and start your takeoff roll with
more than the bare minimum of required runway remaining.

Yes....but I think the point is, there is a spectrum of choices
between "the bare minimum" and landing only on a clear runway,
just as there's a spectrum of choices between "the bare minimum
fuel" and a rule such as "only take off with full tanks".

How much more runway than "the bare minimum" do you want during
takeoff? 10%? 20%? 50%? 100%?

At some point, most of us make operational choices that we're
willing to accept some margin which is more than "the bare minimum",
but less than twice what we need. Where that margin is lies with
the individual pilot. Maybe it's 20% for me and 30% for you. Maybe
vice versa.

OK, now we're landing. How much more runway than "the bare minimum"
do you want? Same operational choices apply. With me so far?

So what's the difference between landing on a 3000 ft runway when
you feel you really only need 1000 ft, vs landing on a 4000 ft
runway with a plane 3000 ft down the runway taxiing off?

Why reduce or eliminate your safety margin when there's
absolutely no good reason to?

Why do you feel there's "absolutely no good reason to"? Maybe
there is...

Cheers,
Sydney