.. which brings us to the main concerns ..
(a) Vmcg is one of those certification beasties which have their purpose in life but shouldn't be nipping at the heels of line pilots ... unfortunately, Vmcg is one which does do just that in some circumstances... which is why Mutt, MFS, I and others like to see it come up periodically in the sandpit .. although more frequently in Tech Log than FT.
(b) most of the time Vmcg (and crosswind effects on the "real world" Vmcg) is irrelevant to line operations as it is way, way below the V1 for the day. This brings into play that dreadful animal called line pilot complacency. Added to training bias, this can set up such folk for embarrassment .. easier for the TP who is more prepared to think on the run and abandon a takeoff post-V1 when things are obviously going pear shaped.
(c) if the V1 of the day is not too far above Vmcg, then crosswind needs to be in the line pilot's mind.
(d) for those occasions where one has little option (short runway etc) then it may be reasonable to accept the crosswind risk and go (although perhaps one could consider delaying until the wind abates ?) .. on the real world basis that the risk of a failure at/near a critical stage of the takeoff is pretty low .. and the chances of all the holes lining up (CG etc) are pretty low as well
(e) however, the concern we have relates to the case where options ARE available but the system sets the line pilot up for a fall. Consider the case of a ferry flight at very low TOW. If one is fat, dumb and happy, it is too easy to use a very low speed schedule appropriate to the weight. If the crosswind is a problem .. then it may be quite easy to ramp up the speed schedule to make the directional control problem go away. In the absence of specific Type data, a starting point is to aim for a pad in excess of 0.5 kt/kt for (rear-mounted) twins increasing to 1 kt/kt for quads (and, perhaps, wing-mounted twins ?)...
One would feel an awful goose .. sitting in the mud off to one side ... with the bird all bent and mangled ... knowing that one could have elected to use a V1 many tens of knots higher than the min speed schedule V1 one did, in fact, use ... with spectacularly unsuccessful results ...
Is this a problem we should lose a lot of sleep over ? .. probably not .. but I did some twin training for one largish operator which routinely used very high overspeed takeoff speed schedules (for appropriate reasons) but had a revenue sequence which included a short hop ferry to position the aircraft. So here we had all these fine folk doing all their training at humungous V1s .. but quite frequently doing this short hop ferry with a V1 down in the weeds near Vmcg .. is that not an inadvertant set up ? (As far as I knew, there was no specific training directed to this end of the operational spectrum)
For those command upgrades I put through I wasn't too worried .. they could handle sim exercises at min weight, min speed, aft CG etc .. and track on the centreline using the other end localiser .. but, judging from a few routine renewal checks I got roped into doing .. some of the other folk had the odd problem or two with low speed cuts ... not too hard to get an experienced pilot up to speed with the problem in several practice cuts .. but one really doesn't want a chap (or lady, for that matter) to find out .. on the line .. at V1 .. that his (or her) training missed that small point.