Rumbo,
Yep you are right to a degree but its all a giant stats game as you well know. The engine running at higher thrust is more likely to fail than one flexing.
Therefore, you reduce the chances of losing an engine by flexing but have less runway to stop in should that occur. On most occasions getting airborne close to V1 with a failure, on modern jets with decent FBW systems, beats the high speed abort and associated problems on the ground any day.
Having said that if performance is such a big issue why do some pilots jump at the chance of intersection take-offs, even with big jets, when it allows them to take off just a full 2 minutes earlier with 500m less runway? Perhaps all intersection take-offs should be banned!
Normally when the jet goes off the end it isn't a straight performance problem, there are other factors involved that the crew haven't considered, just ask those Warrens from Qantas. By the way going off the end is allowed by the regs thats why we have stopways and clearways.
I am not saying that I am right or that it is right but I do know that safety is always a compromise. Otherwise aircraft would be attached to the ground at all times and called trains, oops they crash too. And, we would have matresses strapped to our arses.
Ghost
