Originally Posted by
whenrealityhurts
The rest of us have spent a lifetime flying planes where there is a mile of pavement in front of us, and just can't imagine why you'd take the wreck up in the air when you have the opportunity to safely keep the aircraft on the ground.
The pilot of the Emerald 748 had approximately "a mile of pavement" in front of him - the "bang" happened with 1750m remaining, or about 1.1 miles. And his takeoff speed was a fairly low 111kts. Yet even with those favourable conditions, he still overran the far end of the runway at 62kts, a speed high enough to be considered likely to cause a hazardous outcome - which equates to death for some of the passengers or crew. That it didn't in this case was due to a relatively favourable overrun area and the good fortune of missing the approach lights.
Even if the decision was a reasonable one for those circumstances - the AAIB feels it was, and people here have suggested that the specifics of the aircraft/engine concerned go some way to backing that up - the crew were nevertheless wagering what they felt was probable disaster in-air against possible disaster on-ground. Had the outcome of the overrun been even a little worse then I suspect there would have been a lot more official questioning of the captain's decision-making.
Except in the most favourable conditions, conducting a safe rejection from above V1 (or Vr, in this case) will never be an option with any guarantee of a safe outcome; accurately weighing two unknown but high risks in an instant is going to be a challenge for any skill level.