If ever there was a case of deliberately putting your foot into a minefield, this one is!!!
As the venerable
John_T has put in his 2 cents worth, I'd have to concede that, from a performance perspective, he speaks the truth,
BUT............
As John alludes to in point (b) "
there is adequate spare runway to accommodate the (possibly quite significant) ground run delta", just how do you know what the runway length requirement would be to accelerate an additional 20 knots with one engine inoperative? There's no AFM data to support this, but by examination of reduced V1s for Wet / Contaminated runways for a few A320 / B737 type aircraft,
at least an additional 1000 M (3000 Ft for the Yanks) would be required,
AT LEAST!
Even if you do have that additional 1000 M of Runway length available, and, as you're speaking of a continued Takeoff (
GO) case, have you considered that in calculating obstacle clearance, the Effective Operational Length (EOL) required to become airborne earlier than the full runway length may be at it's limit well before the runway end? So, you win with respect to the runway length, but hit the obstacle!!! I'll take my chances with the runway, runway over-runs are usually surviveable, obstacle collisions are NOT!
Current operator thinking is to be "
GO" minded, I agree with this as a general rule, but methinks that we have taken it a little too far, to the point where it has become an article of religious faith
Regards,
Old Smokey