Hi Rudderrat,
I appreciate your points and know them very well. I am just surprised at the fact that we choose not to treat the G/A with the same academicism as the take-off.
2) If you suffer an engine failure after AA on the GA, then your all engine climb out would have been much bigger than the minimum required gradient.
Point taken. But again, this is hardly academic. Itīs the equivalent of saying letīs use 140-140-145, flex 50 on take-off everyday. We know that this will work in 99.9999999% of the cases (as long as the engine doesnt fail) but itīs simply not the way we have chosen to treat performance on take-off. Why should it be any different on G/A. Either we go all the way, or we shouldnīt bother at all. Even an engine failure in cruise is considered at all times, on all enroute segments. And this whilst a G/A is at low altitude (high thrust setting, birdstrikes, weather etc.) and arguably more likely to occur.