Johns7022
Actually, what would be logical is determining why the 55% didn't continue the take-off like SOP and the record of safe flight would have indicated; that would also eliminate those who didn't use the braking procedure effectively or didn't conduct proper preflight planning as rejected takeoffs because they wouldn't have rejected. Leaving the 20% of unavoidables to fix.
Using MfS's numbers, probably half of those 37 "adverse" outcomes wouldn't have happened had the pilot simply took off. "Poor preflight planning" does not indicate they didn't do an aircraft preflight, maybe the failure point could have identified during planning. And I'll bet you won't use the brakes effectively, if under the stress of a field length limited take-off you decide to reject past V1 because you guessed it won't fly. Oh yeah, you don't do the calculations, so you won't know you are past V1. How's that feeble Citation anti-skid work, anyhow? As has been pointed out, using ATM Flex or derate power will, in most cases, increase safety margins, but you don't want to listen to anything that doesn't fit into your visceral hatred of the industry
I think we can agree Johns7022, you can fly your Citation solo in the US Northwest and let the pros fly paying passengers around world, following SOPs developed by other pros who, do performance engineering based on the work of other pros who designed and applied science to the problem of flight. They've alL posted here, with endless patience, and have vast experience in ops and the knowledge of perhaps 300 million flight hours to base their opinions on. You can fly and decide the outcomes using a "seat of the pants" approach that gave aviation it's horrible stats in the early days. The fatal accident rate has come down so dramatically due to advancing beyond your method.
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 10th Dec 2010 at 00:41.