Westhawk
Enjoy the race!
First, I apologize for the unintended implication that the criminal case resulted from the overrun; it, indeed, was due to other certificate issues. Although, I would submit their casualness about certificate issues drove their casualness about flight ops. Rarely are well-managed, safe flight ops run by dysfunctional or criminal managements.
My point in that last paragraph was related, not to V1 concerns, but to the fact that most runways have very dangerous conditions in VERY close proximity to the EOR. Getting blasé about the possibility of an overrun can be very risky due to the terrain/structures within reach, even in a low speed overrun. I was at a Pacific island airport recently, 75' overrun, followed by a 40' dirt drop- off to the road below. Go off that edge, even at 15 knots, could be fatal.
Our overheated correspondent blows strong against CRM, too. Look at KBUR, were a headstrong captain failed to use the FO's valid concerns--a failure of CRM, not CRM causing an accident.
Lastly, yes, bigger planes, bigger numbers; the basic physics doesn't change, just the magnitudes. For the life of me, I don't understand pilots who get casual with W&B and trim settings. In the USAF, we periodically were given bad data to generate just the situation as at KSBA. Running the trim is often the only situation, but you really need to avoid the situation, in the first place. I had a pilot say, "8 degrees light, 9 degrees heavy", aviation has no room for such casualness.
All that said, as a result of this, and similar discussions, have been considering briefing the "unable to fly" response, especially when large amounts of excess runway exist. The other day at DXB, we had a field length of around 3,900' on 13,123', stopping anytime until actually airborne was reasonable. Every take-off plan in the C-5 included refusal speeds, which gave one an idea what was possible, but what good is a refusal of 170 knots when rotate was 122?
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 28th Aug 2011 at 12:42.