Defenestrator,
I think that I'll add your early remark to my wish list. Did you really mean 8% delta between Gross and Net Climb Gradients? If only it were true, a typo perhaps?
Methinks you meant 0.8%
There is an element of discomfort for most pilots in discounting any climb capability (for a twin) in the 1st segment, with the regulations merely specifying that the gradient need only be positive. In truth (at least for most aircraft) the Delta between 1st and 2nd segments ACTUAL gradients rarely exceeds 1%, thus, if you meet the Net 1.6% Net minimum requirement (as you must), the ACTUAL 1st segment is usually of the order of 0.6% or so. Hardly startling performance, but a darned sight better than just "positive". Of course, there may be some 1st Segment "dogs" out there that kill this comfort level.
Hmmm, a bit of discomfort in placing reliance on SOPs getting you home at the end of the day. For good operators with thoroughly developed EOSIDs, yes, that's true. Sadly, I know of more than a few operators whose SOP following engine failure is to maintain Runway Track, and that's it. NOT recommended at Albury 07, Canberra 17, Townsville 19, Alice Springs 30, Hobart 30, Adelaide 05 or 12...... just to name a few Australian nasties seeing as your monika says you're from Australia. These are a few very obvious 'nasties', the seemingly benign 200 foot hill at a mile from the runway end that seemed so innocent in day to day All-Engines Operations, is really going to spoil your day when one quits at V1.... just a 3.3% gradient to meet Vs the 1.6% Net that SOPs provided for (even the full 2.4% Gross won't beat that one
).
No criticism of a good post, just putting a few things into perspective.
Regards,
Old Smokey