John,
I enjoy the majority of your posts here, and am glad that you aren't afraid to put forward your views.
However, I think you missed the thrust of my post above.
Regarding pilot responsibility. I was saying, in rather more words, that
because there is so little data available, and so little of it is accessible to pilots, an effective analysis
is very difficult. We make a 'best guess' at each take-off as to the preferable way out of trouble, the same way we make many other professional judgements.
Regrettably, these matters cannot be as precise as you seem to suggest they should, that this is so is addressed within macro risk asessment.
Moreover, you echo my remarks about the paucity of terrain data. Some of it may be commercially available, but not all. That is why in the majority of cases the NTOFP which goes straight ahead is safe!!!
I object most strongly to airlines whose training departments blithely say 'follow the SID' when their performance is sourced from providers who clearly have not and cannot know whether the SID is terrain safe, but do know that going straight ahead is safe. Worst, I have a feeling that some of this is macho clap-trap driven by the belief that climbing straight ahead when you're in trouble is simply too easy.
Yes, some of the sums post-theodolite-trek may be simple enough, but they are still likely to result in low RTOWs, lower than those assuming a sraight-ahead climb or a simple emergency turn. It's also worth wondering why an airline would want to spend a fortune on assessing lots of terrain around lots of airports when the staright ahead/emergency turn data is already available...?
So, 'dear colleague', I think we are singing from the same hymn-sheet.
I'm glad I had those sunglasses on!
