compressor stall,
We probably are talking about two scenarios and decision processes, I suspect.
If the runway is of minimal length (or we are looking at an initial twin endorsement saga), then I'm with you.
If there is excess distance, however, then the pilot has the luxury of considering some choices, the reasonable extremes being ..
(a) If he/she chooses to go with the minimum distance scenario, fine, there is no argument with the proposition that AEO energy management is better addressed by going for height rather than speed.
However, if there is an engine problem during the grey area prior to cleaning up and achieving a suitable height/speed, then the speed range for which the aircraft (at decent weights and density heights) will climb is quite marginal, if it exists. This then leaves the pilot with the problem of doing all that which needs to be done, accelerating, and eventually climbing if the aircraft capability so permits. This takes time and distance at low level (perhaps well beyond the runway confines), and involves a sweaty period during which the inexpert pilot can easily find him/herself in a deteriorating performance situation bounded by a Vmca and/or stall/spin departure on the lowspeed end.
(b) If he/she elects to use the spare runway to get a bit faster before climbing significantly (ie puts the go/no go decision speed a little higher), then the AEO energy management is inferior but the OEI handling decision making is simpler. For pilots without the opportunity to do lots of asymmetric training practice this possibly offers an overall lower risk outcome.
The pragmatic upper speed limit is at or around the anticipated blue line for the day and many pilots appear to like a 10 knot pad.
I don't really think that this philosophical technique in any way contadicts anything in the AFM requirements. Normally, AFM performance data for this class of aircraft merely provides some guidance. The pilot is left to determine a number of practical applications of that guidance material ... consider terrain avoidance for instance.
The concern is not a failure at height, rather during the early post liftoff grey area.
No argument that the decal blue line may not be the most appropriate speed, but it is certainly going to be within the climb capable speed range for the day. If the pilot doesn't know the "correct" optimum value, blue line is probably the next best choice.
For final OEI climb, climb performance at a bank angle of around 2-3 degrees will be a little better than that for 5 degrees. In general, 5 degree bank approximates the climb performance for wings level under these conditions. For initial control of a failure at LOW speed (where Vmca becomes more of a concern), then a bank of 5 degrees (perhaps even a little more in some circumstances) may be quite critically important.
If the aircraft ASI is marked incorrectly then that is a different problem altogether and one would be advised to shop around for a more ethical and procedurally competent maintainer.
As I am sure you would agree, each takeoff ought to be assessed by the pilot prior to commencement and a specific decision made as to the intended handling procedure and tracking intentions to be adopted for that particular takeoff. The next takeoff may well be approached in a different manner.
At the end of the day, you pays your money ... you takes your chances. I would far rather improve my chances, if circumstances permit, and then argue about the niceties afterwards.
[ 13 January 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>