Pilot: I decided I'd rather put up with your stupid line of questions, than (if lucky) testify at the coroner's inquest. :rolleyes:

(Thinks: DHC8, 12k r/w, isn't V1 sorta academic?)

I agree with The Ancient Geek. Anyone who is familiar with the Dash-8 would recognize the 'plain old-fashioned common sense' that the crew applied to the decision-making process in this situation.

"Such a massive deviation from SOP and foray into such an unknown area"

Unknown? DHC-100 with 12000 feet of runway? Maybe unknown for someone who so blindly leans on the concept of SOP (which is not even applicable in this case) that they don't dare to use their own judgement.

If you are 100 % sure that you can stop but only 80 % sure the aircraft will fly, which is the best decision?

Now hang on a minute. They noticed an intermittent stall warning light before rotation yet continued the take off only to reject after they became airborne!

Why not stop when you notice the warning light instead of getting airborne and then stopping?! After all, they had 12000 feet of runway to make a decision didn't they.

In the modern vernacular WTF?!

Think about it.
An intermittent flickering warning light is probably not a big problem.
When the wheels come off the ground the stall horn starts bleating and the stick shaker tries to shake your teeth loose - time to sit up and take notice.

An intermittent flickering stall warning light! Would that not make you think before you got airborne? Would you not sit up and take notice before you took off!?

An erroneous stick shaker is also not a problem.

No, not necessarily. The stall warning system can flicker on some types of aircraft during the take-off roll as a result of wind gusts momentarily operating the lift detector, or de-ice fluid residue being displaced onto the lift detector at the start of the take-off run. I have experienced both of these causal factors in my career.

If the stall warning system began to continuously operate during the take-off roll, then yes, that would provide reasonable justification to reject the take-off. But, for a flicker (implies momentary operation that then stops)? I don't think there are too many pilots who would elect to reject for a flicker.

Nor would I. Sitting up and taking notice does not equate to rejecting a take off.

In 1200 hours on this type I never saw an intermittent/flickering stall warning. However, if I had and elected to continue then I'd be less than surprised by stick shaker activation when we got airborne because there was obviously something not quite right with the system.

One malfunctioning stick shaker (and it's a bit pathetic anyway) isn't a big deal. The aircraft will still fly without a problem.

SOP = Standard Operating Procedures

NSOP = Non-Standard Operating Procedures = The decisions made by the Aircraft Commander as a function of Captaincy

Fifteen years ago we were operating SuperKingAirs out of Kai Tak. Because of the imminent Chinese takeover of HongKong,we were made to come under the Civil Aviation Department and follow their rules. Whereas we had always used common sense and had followed the idea that if an engine failed or a potentially catastrophic event occurred on take-off we would land back on if sufficient runway was available--bearing in mind that this could be 10,000ft at Kai Tak--- we were forced to accept that after V1 we had to get airbourne regardless. This could have led to a "harbour circuit" on one engine ,possibly on fire instead of dealing with things at rest halfway down the runway. I did suggest that decisions in such cases were best left to the pilot but was labelled a "Dinosaur" which bucked me up somewhat!