In article , wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
[snip]
No one will fault you for keeping 10% under gross, but I don't think
that is really necessary. Most runways in the mountains are plenty
long for a 172 or cherokee. If you look up the performance data and
add 20% for pilot and aircraft performance, there will not be many
runways that are shorter. After all, if a runway is too small for a
172, how many other aircraft can really use that runway?

I stand with Blanche on this one... it is NOT a runway length issue.
As you state, the mountain runways are long enough. The reason for
operating 10% under max gross weight is performance. In the mountains
the critical issue is climb performance. The difference between 50 FPM
and 200 FPM will allow a great reduction in pucker factor. :-)

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

Of course what Jer/ doesn't mention is that I learned it from
him during the mountain flying course!

See? I *was* paying attention!