Originally Posted by
AirRabbit
it really does surprise me to hear that you are a pilot and simply do not trust the way airplanes have been and are certificated. If I interpret your comment correctly, you believe that you are regularly subjecting yourself, your crew, and all the passengers, to fallacies in the education, testing, re-testing, examination, verification, practice, analyses, etc., etc. that go into just airplane performance certification. If that is true, I cannot imagine your concern about the metallurgy, aerodynamics, structures, engines, wheels, tires, brakes, and the myriad of systems, systems interoperability … and on and on. The question comes to mind, why not find employment selling a product in which you really believe?
There are all kinds of examples of aircraft that met certification standards that have in fact failed with serious consequences. From the aft cargo door failure leading to 346 deaths on a Turkish airlines DC-10, to the Concorde fuel tanks to a main cargo door on a United 747 near Hawaii to a United DC-10 in Sioux City. Certification has worked well but is no absolute guarantee. However, I have accepted the risks just like crossing a street. What I don't accept is an absolute guarantee of safety. Your statement of following V1 as certified is the safest course of action of course as a general rule. All I stating is that there is something quite significant out there that many are unaware of. That under a critical engine failure scenario with min V1 being slightly higher than VMCG, it is not nearly as safe as you state to just continue.
Originally Posted by
AirRabbit
Finally, your comment about my statement concerning my belief that “cavalier” decisions seems to say that deciding to throw the rule book out the window on the basis of your own gut feelings is every bit as logical as choosing to follow the established performance standards. Is that correct? Even if it is only partially true, I would surmise that you are, indeed, in the wrong profession.
You will notice that I started off the conversation by stating that this was just for arguments sake. But, if I am in the wrong profession, please tell me how it is any less cavalier for the authorities to certify that an aircraft is supposedly safe to continue with an engine failure at V1 when there is what we frequently experience ie. a significant crosswind.