John F,
Ah hah ! ... someone took the bait ....
I concur with your comments - almost ...
BUT .. there is one problem which seems to be ignored to a great extent and is one which I try to get across to my students - just to have it in the back of their minds.
In the case of lightweight takeoffs, V-schedule chart data (however presented) exhorts us to watch out for Vmcg in the event of a min V1 sort of takeoff. Now, depending on the amendment list state of play for the certification design standards, we can find ourselves in the situation where we are scheduling a min V1 at or near the published (nil or low wind) Vmcg.
Whereupon the blissfully ignorant (of the problem) pilot may well happily continue the takeoff if the failure is at or about V1 - and, in the current philosophical climate of being "go-oriented" this might just mean that the pilot ... on this unfortunate occasion where the cg is well aft .. and the crosswind rather bracing .. not to mention being from the wrong side .... might just have shaded "his" V1 a few knots.
Now I, probably like many pilots, thought that the Australian regulator's concern with runway width was so much waffle. That is, until I watched a video taken from the end of a longish runway somewhere in the Antipodes, of a well loved narrow body twin being subjected to engine cuts over a range of speeds in the vicinity of Vmcg.
The video camera was fitted with a 1000mm lens (or was it 800mm ? - I can't quite recall now) which gave somewhat less than a half degree field of view. That converts to the wingtips being well outside the sides of the video image at 2nm).
I suggested in a previous post that the runway centreline deviation (which is basically what Vmcg is looking at in the continued takeoff case) becomes interesting around Vmcg and that the effect of crosswind is to move this asymptote to the perpendicular up the graph to a higher speed - this is the problem.
I still have the relevant videos on file (somewhere) - a beer is the cost of a look. It is quite sobering to see a moderate size aeroplane disappear out of the field of view - and this a Type which pilots reverently assured me ... "tracks on rails with an engine failure". Regrettably I never flew the Type.
John suggests that the scenario is a non event in the RTO case and our observations of several Types quite support that thought.
The problem is when the takeoff is continued.
Now, I am not suggesting that we ought not get out of bed in the morning because of this particular risk. However, it is a useful thing for the pilot to understand - in these restricted conditions, a continued takeoff may not be possible, especially on a narrowish sort of runway. This is one of those times when being go-oriented might not be the best risk averse option.
If a company's operational requirements do not proscribe such a procedure, and circumstances permit, the whole problem goes away if V1 is increased by a suitable margin to account for the crosswind.