Jw scud,
Point taken. My airline experience was before the days of LOFT profiles. In USAF, all the profiles were LOFT with the required V1 drills tossed in; i.e. You would abort at V1, taxi back fixed then fly a mission which might conclude with an enroute OEI, approach, miss yo a landing with some associated system problems. In bizav, we just do the checkride evolutions i.e. abort, take-off lose an engine return with hand flown, raw data, ILS and landing. Check box ticked. No LOFT profiles.
Airmann,
Well, there has to be some line in the sand and reducing the screen height allows fairly similar payloads under the two conditions with minimal reduction in safety and perhaps an improvement as JT points out. The USAF, perennially underpowered reduced the screen height, wet or dry, to ZERO. The stop was based on the the nose gear at the last brick or the mains lifting off at the last brick. Interesting on a WAT-limited take-off at Madrid in the summer with 225,000# of munitions on 13.500'