Critique the decisions made here. L-1011 abort following lift off when the stall warning/stick shaker activated.
http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online...s/AAR93-04.pdf
Re Concorde had it attempted an abort from the report
Consequences of Aborting the Takeoff
Two simulations of a possible acceleration-stop were performed, one based on the aircraft’s speed when the rotation was commenced (that is to say in fact the first moment when the crew could have been warned by unusual sensations), at 183 kt, the other at 196 kt, when the FE said what can be understood as “stop”.
The simulations were conducted with the following hypotheses:
• braking on seven wheels, to take into account the destruction of tyre No 2,
• braking torque available at nominal value until the maximum energy indicated in the Flight Manual (70 MJ), increased by 10%,
• use of thrust reversers on engines 1, 3 and 4. With this set of hypotheses, it appears that the residual speed of the aircraft at the end of the runway would have been 74 kt for a takeoff aborted at 183 kt and 115 kt for a takeoff aborted at 196 kt. These figures show that an aborted takeoff would have led to a runway excursion at such a speed that, taking into account the fire, the result would probably have been catastrophic for the aircraft and its occupants.
The relevant speeds for the take off were V1: 150 kt, VR: 198 kt, V2: 220 kt. They ran over the metal strip, which precipitated the event, at 175 kt, 25 kt past V1.
Was there not some discussion that an abort, and the trajectory the aircraft would have taken, would may have lead to a collision with a 747, and was the presumed reason he rotated some 11 kt early?