Blank acceptance of V speeds and thier veracity, is simple faith in your airdata computer, your engines performing...your tires aren't deflated...ect ect. Guppy, let's say your FO puts in the wrong numbers, simple mistake...so your barreling down the runway, waiting for V1....
Do you know what an air data computer is? Clearly not. FO "puts in the wrong numbers?" You play microsoft flight simulator, don't you? It would appear any student pilot would have a better idea on this than you.
Your use of the DC-9 overrun at Goma is another example of introducing irrelevant but dramatic material in an effort to cloud the issue. What you left out is that the runway is in poor condition, six years after being damaged and shortened by a volcanic erruption...and still unrepaired. The runway was wet. No details are provided beyond laymans descriptions of blood and carnage, regarding what actually occured...so it's use in a technical discussion contributes nothing at all. I think you used google and listed the first aircraft mishap you found in the hopes it might prove the unfounded and clouded point you're hoping to make.
Did the crew attempt to reject the takeoff or continue? Do you know? Reports vary, some claiming a blown tire, some claiming an explosion, nobody having an useful information on that event, least of all yourself. And of all the environments you could have picked, you chose Africa, where aviation safety is roughly on par with the price of tea in china, and also just as relevant. You picked the Congo, where fire fatal mishaps have occured in the last year. And where airline flights to the EU have been banned for safety violations. This is what you use to demonstrate a safe operation or make a point?
If he has enough runway to stop, he stops, if he doesn't, and he's got enough speed he goes. If he's too far down the runway, too slow..then maybe the numbers are wrong, configuration was wrong, who knows, but it should have been caught 8000 ft ago, not at the end of runway, where the firetrucks are...
That's called 'being ahead of the arcraft"
Perhaps in your microsoft flight simulator.
The videos are clear cut examples of people putting in the numbers, wrong or not, thinking they could make it, and not making it when they either reject or go. Overloaded or not...blown tires or not, the plane didn't act right and the take off should have been rejected early. They weren't ahead of the aircraft.
The videos are clear cut examples? One is a rejected takeoff...which overran the end. You assert that the crew should have rejected the takeoff earlier? Earlier such as when the engine hadn't failed? The crew should have simply elected to reject the takeoff for no good reason? You have no credibility here. Clearly just looking for an arguement that doesn't exist.
The other clear cut example you use...the microsoft flight simulation of a crash that never occured, is imaginary, and cartoonish. Clear cut? No. Example? No. It's a clip from a computer game showing an imaginary airplane and nothing more.
Thus far you've used dramatized examples regarding mishaps for which no information is available, cartoons of imaginary wrecks, and while trying to support the notion of rejecting rather than continuing the takeoff, you provide footage of a 747 that rejects and overruns anyway. Brilliant...you couldn't make a worse case if you tried...and one can't be sure you're not trying hard.