CAPT OF ACR LTT ACFT CONCERNED THAT HE DID NOT COMPUTE NEW REQUIRED RWY LENGTH ACCURATELY INFLT WHEN LEARNING THAT A PORTION OF THE RWY IN USE WAS CLOSED.

Narrative

A FLT FROM LAX TO BFL WITH THE FAA ON BOARD. I; AS CAPT; WAS THE PNF. WHEN I COPIED THE ATIS AT BFL I LEARNED THAT 4357 FT OF RWY 30R WAS CLOSED WHICH LEFT 6500 FT OF USABLE RWY REMAINING. I TOOK THE PLANE AND HAD THE COPLT CHK TO SEE IF WE HAD PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE NEW CONDITIONS; WE DID NOT HAVE IT SO I HAD HIM CHK THE PERFORMANCE DATA FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO (SBP) WHICH IS MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE (4799 FT AT SBP) WHICH WOULD ENSURE THAT WE WERE LEGAL TO LAND. AFTER LNDG THE FAA INSPECTOR SAID NOTHING AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THE INCIDENT SINCE. AT THE TIME I THOUGHT WE WERE LEGAL BUT NOW I'M SURE I SHOULD HAVE HAD THE PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AT THE SPECIFIC ARPT. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: DISPATCH KNEW OF THE SHORTER RWY IN BFL BUT DIDN'T TELL ME. OPS IN LAX KNEW BUT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING. SHE WAS HAVING THE RAMPERS (WHO MAKE $6.00/HR AND HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE) GIVE US THE NEW PERFORMANCE AT BFL ALONG WITH THE MANIFESTS WHICH I DID NOT RECEIVE. MY COPLT KNEW BUT ASSUMED THAT I KNEW. MY COMPLACENCY ABOUT BFL IS THAT WHEN YOU FLY TO AN ARPT 20 TIMES A MONTH FOR 2 MONTHS (I FLY FROM SBP-LAX-BFL-LAX- SBP EVERYDAY AND THAT'S ALL I DO). I MISSED THE SHORTER RWY CONDITIONS ON THE NOTAMS WHICH WAS MY FAULT. I HAVE TO KEEP FAMILIARITY FROM KEEPING ME FROM READING THE NOTAMS IN DETAIL.