This thread is cranking up to be quite interesting ...
can lead to quite substantially less thrust than the lowest (climb 2) climb thrust setting
It would be more logical to me, if you wish to use max derate/flex, to continue at that setting until it becomes limiting with respect to climb thrust.
Sadly we do not even get any tables concerning Vmcg/a anymore
You really don't need them per se .. look to the speed schedule tables at minimum weight. Where the speed no longer varies with weight (Vs limiting) you are either Vmca or Vmcg limiting.
when in reality it is a very flexible thing within its limitations.
Basically fixed at very low weights to Vmca limitations, then increases with Vs against weight with the proviso that a modest increase (per overspeed -Boeing, improved performance - AB) for better climb performance usually is available
to keep that speed during rotation and beyond with the kinda lowish rotation speed required for stretched bodylength-aircraft (738/9).
Keeping in mind that V2 is OEI driven.
For the normal AEO takeoff, one isn't looking to peg V2, rather something modestly in excess - typically +15-25 according to AFM recommended practice for twins. Especially for the sports car twins, AEO V2 climb has its own potential for hazard and frightens the daylights out of the new passengers ..
"trained" our new trainers to use 1,000 ft agl Acceleration Altitude everywhere
Common practice to use a standard third segment height for crew familiarity (other than for the nastier places which require specific special escape procedures). Generally, the standard height will be based on the highest runway requirement outside the set of special procedures. eg, in Australia we used (and probably still do) 800ft which was based on Canberra obstacles.
when I see how far behind OEI takeoff flight path navigation
I don't have any problems with cutting down the trapezoid a bit .. with two caveats -
(a) how do we ensure the higher manipulative standard to ensure accurate tracking in the initial OEI phase ?
Plenty of sim studies to show that the reality doesn't match the desire, even with generally high standard of manipulation crews.
It certainly CAN be trained in but that takes time and money. In my experience, one needs a directed sim session's worth of time to achieve a standard where the pilot can reliably back track the opposite localiser from a min weight Vmcg/Vmca limiting takeoff (aft CG .. the full bit) .. but it's wonderful to see the confidence boost once the guy/gal up front gets to that standard. Conversely, most who haven't been exposed to those extremes tend to roll over and go in upside down on the first couple of attempts ...
(b) the aircraft has to have a nav system of sufficent statistical accuracy and reliability to warrant permitting stooging down near and around obstacles
.. with both satisfied all is OK.
I recall my own Damascus .. coming to airline flying as an ops engineer, I had great faith in the engineer's ability to generate wonderful and interesting takeoff and escape data ... the first max weight takeoff in the F27 from a critical length runway ... as I watched (with ever widening eyes) the runway head slide under the radome .. and we were still on the ground .... caused me to adopt a far more conservative approach.
Now that another colleague on this forum is flying rather than computing, I suspect that his views progressively will echo my own ....
My hunch was that TWA's 727-200s with the smallest engine Boeing optioned, would have been more in the arena of net than gross.
That does suggest a bit of over optimistic ops engineering .. the engine Mk should only dictate the numbers for the standardised conditions ...
It still is. 200 feet within the airport boundary, 300 beyond
Then I am glad that I have never worked to 121.
As to accurate information, 1:24,000 topo quads are available for the entire U.S
Having spent much time poring over topos of many and varied scales, and following up with the theodolite slung over the shoulder on numerous occasions .. I don't view anything much worse than 1:5000 - 1:10000 as being other than indicative
So, the crew may want to proceed, for example, to Montrose or Grand Junction rather than returning to Aspen, Eagle, Hayden, Gunnison or Rifle.
Concur .. but mutt's point is that, first, one needs to get high enough to do so. That's where the option of limiting the radius of action (often) provides an advantage.
the end of the takeoff flight path may be too low to turn around
Many of us adopt the practice of running the takeoff calcs up to enroute - certainly OS and I do in the present group. To do otherwise in other than terrain benign environments would be hard to argue successfully in court.
War-story department:
I look forward to an ale or 10 over which the group can exchange a set of similar horror stories.
We just have to accept that the certification data is idealised with few sops to the conscience of reality. On bad hair days, stuff happens to conspire against the crews ... as you observe, systems reliability is a saving grace.