Come on Guppy...don't give it away....
So the consensus is?
Flying a burning aircraft up through the soup, fighting the fire while in the circut for single engine approach is more acceptable then simply pulling back the levers and adding some brakes.?
A high speed rejected takeoff isn't nearly as simple as "pulling back the levers and adding some brakes." For a guy who claims to be dual rated, and have "10,600 hours and 7 type ratings" you sound for all the world in your posts like an individual who has never flown more than microsoft flight simulator.
These type ratings you claim...never obtained through FSI or Simuflite? Certainly they don't teach what you're espousing. Nor does anyone agree with it. And it sounds ridiculous.
Never the less, you keep pounding out this agenda. Now you've introduced the DC-9 crash in Goma, Congo. Your article was filled with emotion and all the things that are entirely irrelevant to a serious technical discussion...but nothing of substance to add to the discussion. Let's add some then.
What you conveniently left out is that the runway is very poor condition, severely damaged by a volcano six years ago, and still not fixed. The runway is 6,500 feet long now. The runway was wet. It's surrounded by high terrain; the VOR approach involves a six thousand foot descent from overhead the VOR on the field. The crew executed a rejected takeoff on that runway, overrunning the end and causing carnage.
So you ask...
Just fly it to the fence and go...right Guppy?
Clearly rejecting the takeoff didn't do much good; 37 so far dead. However, to discuss the merits further is pointless until more details emerge. What you managed to do was inject more superfluous information which you appear to have dredged off a news report...offering nothing meaningful but drama. You do this just to cloud the issue? We don't have any useful information regarding why they did what they did, at what point in the takeoff they did it, or if they made a good decision...nothing...yet this is the evidence of your flawed case? Moreover, you're using
African aviation as an example of what to do or not to do??? This is the fifth fatal crash in the Congo in the last year, and they've been banned from operating to Europe. Hardly the model example of what to do, and hardly a useful example in light of the fact that no details are presented.
'Great Spirits have always enountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
You reckon you're a great spirit, do you? Okay, great spirit. Throw out some real world numbers. A good start will be all the successful high speed rejected takeoffs above V1 as a good faith effort to show that what you're talking about has at least a track record of success. When you're done with that, educate yourself a little bit on what really happens during a high speed rejected takeoff, and the reason that universally everyone disagrees with you. You might learn something (though it's doubtful, based on your comments here). Instead of pulling ridiculous, dramatic, irrelevant examples out of thin air, why not stick to the meat of the matter? Better yet, drop it. Your horse has been beaten dead.