It's interesting that, according to 747FOCAL, the authorities consider that an aircraft is not truly airborne until its height above the ground at least equals its wingspan. This would mean that a 747 would need to be nearly 200 feet off the ground before it could be considered airborne. This doesn't make much sense to me. Also, I question the reality of ground effect in the case of an ascending aircraft. But who am I to argue with the authorities?
The tail section of the MK aircraft struck the runway twice during its takeoff roll but apparently the aircaft did lift off the end of the runway, i.e. become airborne in the non-FAR 25 sense - but only just because the next instant the sagging tail section struck the berm.
I still don't understand why no one on this thread has addressed the question of why a crewmember advanced the throttles by a significant amount late (around V1) in the takeoff roll, instead of calling an abort. Much has been made of the fact that the crew may have been very tired. At least one of them, though, was not so tired that he didn't notice that the thrust setting was too low. He knew it takes time for an engine to spool up. He knew there was enough runway left in which to come to a stop. Why did he think they could make it?
Rockhound