I think this kind of potentially flawed logic is very widespread indeed and I don't know why its happened
As I mentioned, your concept of flawed logic was approved by Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed and Gulfstream, so I guess that they all got it wrong?
I can't fly what they say is correct
You are making up your own procedures, and you considered us idiots?
Does anyone disagree that the majority of operators do not fly business jets in accordance with either NADP1 or 2?
Nope, we follow the noise profiles.
We have calculated takeoff weights based on the FAR defined flight profile for an engine out. Following your logic and with the approval of the AFM, we can takeoff and retract the gear and flaps almost simultaneously (V2+15-25 weight dependant), so we are at VFS at lets say 200 feet, now an engine fails, what guarantee do i have that i will clear the obstacles in the flight path, you can tell me that I have a better rate of climb at VFS clean, but please provide one chart that allows me to prove that I made a "calculated risk" rather than a "gut feeling"?
We also have specific engine failure procedures with the turn radius calculated on speeds associated with Flaps down, if we go flaps up and accelerate, we then have no guarantee that we can stay in the takeoff cone. So rather than have specific profiles for these airports, we stick with the same non-noise related profile all the time.
Then there is the issue of acceleration altitudes higher than standard due to obstacle clearance requirements, how would you deal with these? Use a different profile?
To me, thats the crux of the matter, its about risk assessment and the only way that i can assess that risk is to follow the profiles published in the AFM.
Mutt