Mutt,
and I hope the Guiness is to your liking, to be sure....
As is often the case, I find myself in very heated agreement with JT on expanding our horizons beyond the failure at Vef. In most of my recent analyses, that is the easiest case because all of the complicating factors are known to us and we can plan with pretty good data.
But in our continuing search for excellence in providing performance advice for flight crews, the failure at Vef is only the first step. The very next step is to look at what happens if the engine fails down-track after the aircraft has left the Vef/special departure procedure flight path. That may result in a more hazardous terrain scenario than the Vef failure case.
As you correctly identify, getting useful AEO data to supplement the OEI data is a major problem. I am sure that all of the data is available from the OEMs but they don't crunch the numbers because it is not AFM prescribed data. In several cases, I have had to resort to using the simulator to create some very conservative worst case data to provide a starting point for the "what-ifs".
You are also quite right in that the "what-ifs" become a Pandora's Box of possible flight path-failure point calculations.
However, my experience in producing RTOWs (mass, I know I know!!) for OEI SID compliance shows a substantial commercial penalty that I cannot justify. The other thing of note is that SIDs are designed purely for the benefit of ATC and the airways structure - in my part of the world there is no real operational analysis and the ATS provider serves no one but itself. I try to look for the critical point on the SID where net performance will provide for the relevant obstacle clearance (ie 35' plus the gross-to-net distance benefit).
I don't have the resources to redo all of our data, so we proceed on a risk management basis as best we can. The bean-counters only see us as an impediment and ignorant flight crew don't often help with the cause. However, the challenge that is emerging is in constructing simple solutions that are flyable without relying on technology or the PNF chattering away like a car rally navigator when there are many competing priorities.
The good thing is - we are getting better at it and we are getting excellent co-operation with the flight crews in designing better operating procedures to complement or to compensate for our performance planning limitations.
The bottom line remains that I want as complete a set of contingency options available to me every time I take my feet off the brakes.......
Stay Alive,