Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
Like all generalisations, the hurt is in the detail. Not such a simple matter, I fear ... consider turbulence, for instance, and whatever get up and go you may have thought you had has just got up and gone ....
The main protection is that we don't have very many critical flight phase failures .. it is always most important to keep in mind very firmly the fact that the book data is based on reasonably good conditions .. turbulence, shear, inversions, speed control etc., for OEI climb are the killers ...
By and large, is it correct to state that
a) the book data are based on a rather specific failure condition - OEI and all other systems intact? And that therefore, the safety margins certified in case of OEI are not necessarily assured to be available in case of any other failure condition, like wrong configuration?
b) that there is no "safe side" of V1 in the case of balanced field/runway limited takeoff weight, because the certification assumption is that rejecting at any speed after V1 is unsafe (overrun) and continuing at any speed below V1 also is unsafe (whether through inability to climb to screen height with OEI, or through veering off the side of runway due to asymmetric thrust of the good engine/s)?
The main protection is that we don't have very many critical flight phase failures ..
But should then one make the assumption that, since there are not very many critical flight phase failures, warnings in critical flight phase should be assumed to be false warnings? That sounds a dangerous assumption.