If the airline has a culture of making the wind fit the performance, that's ignoring the rule-book and accepting reduced safety margins to achieve a desired commercial outcome.
Originally Posted by
Bula
Following the rules and legal requirements are purely for the strick following of the uninformed , and for the guidance of wise men.
I'm sure everyone here has broken rules. Can we conclude that we are all wise men?
You see, the trouble starts when the fools witness the wise men breaking the rules, and assume they can get away with it too. When such behaviour is ignored, or even rewarded by management (for looking after the bottom line, and keeping the show on the road), this evolves into a complacent or dangerous culture, and eventually someone ends up dead.
Most rule books will contain some kind of "out" clause, which is designed to be used when you are satisfied that following the rules will lead to adverse safety. And if you can satisfy that test, and are confident you can defend the decision later, then you aren't breaking the rules. But cost or convenience does not come into this decision.
Of course, a wise man would use his wisdom to try to avoid getting into such situations in the first place. A good start might be to not apply for a job at such an airline, but of course, we don't all have that luxury. Leaving the ground knowingly in breach of performance calculations is neither legal nor safe, and there is a perfectly safe alternative option.
I once thought I was wise, but later realised it was a rather foolish assumption. It's a good goal though. Trying to fly safely and legally, day in, day out, is the wisest thing I've been able to come up with.
But the big question of course is, do airlines such as this one have the culture, the regulatory support, the resources and the training to ensure their pilots can do and are doing the same? (And Maintenance?)