In general, a real-world-Vmcg-on-the-day directional departure is sufficiently rapid to bring tears to the eyes ..
John T,
Ain't that the truth, as the statistics so clearly illustrate.
Anything with an RB211 in particular, always ran down (thrust decay) much faster than anything from GE or Pratt --- but with any, getting the thrust levers back on the stops is absolutely critical to staying on the runway.
Had an outer quit at just over 90Kt. on a light aircraft( No!, Not a FAR 23 aircraft, a B744) one night, Veeery interesting!! Particularly the QAR afterwards.
Of course, for those of you who actually know something about the subject, accountability for a crosswind in working out a Vmcg limited V1 does vary between certification organisations.
we were no longer required to comply with the Australian unique requirement
Actually, that wasn't a local requirement. The Australian change reflected the FAR25 design change as discussed in earlier posts.
Yes, it was ----No other country had applied the requirement
, even if it did appear elsewhere, no other certification authority applied it.
As to the FAR
, of course, because the effect of the CASRs 21 to 35 being made law was to adopt FAR 25 as a certification standard
but to bag on cut and paste on legal and government web sites as well, still refuses
Band a lot,
I assume this applies to my comments.
Quite simply, if something is wrong, the fact that it appears on " legal and government web site" (whatever that is?) doesn't make it right, if it is wrong, it is wrong. Or are you suggesting Government publications are faultless??
On one of my early posts, I made the point that there had, over the years, been a lot of material that incorrectly defined V1, or resulted in persons reading the material misunderstanding the correct meaning of V1. That much such erroneous/misleading material often enough appeared in "official documents" ( such as DCA examination papers) didn't make it right.
I took the trouble to give some of the history of trying to correct large scale misconceptions about V1. I even took the trouble to nominate a few other errors in what are generally regarded to be authoritative documents/sources.
Was it you (??) but somebody even claimed, but was corrected by Lead Balloon, that I had failed to define V1.
For the absence of doubt, I will repeat the correct definition of V1, based on aircraft certification standards, AS IT APPLIES IN THE FLIGHT DECK:
V1 --- The speed at which the takeoff must be continued, if the abort has not already been commenced.
This is not a "Boeing" definition, it is "the" definition of V1, based on FAR 25, and in one form or another, appears in the relevant ACs that constitute the flight test standards applicable.
Tootle pip!!
PS: John T, I would have put myself under the heading of "drummers" rather than"Drumees".