Mutt says -
both of them are perfectly acceptable procedures, performance wise, there is no difference between them
On the first point, I'm in complete agreement, and go further to agree with Boeing that the rolling takeoff is the preferred procedure.
On the second point (there is no difference between them), I beg to differ. If the manufacturer has done the performance certification work using the rolling start technique, suitably described as
calypso has done, then there is no difference between them in terms of legality and safety, but the laws of physics dictate that, in this case, the standing start will offer improved takeoff distance performance (even if undesirable from other aspects).
Boeing may do this but all manufacturers do not do so, and a lot of readers here should be cautioned against accepting that both are the same. A number (I would think most) manufacturers conduct testing and performance certification based upon the "Standing Start" technique to maximise RTOW, and provide suitable corrections to this, either in terms of a weight or Takeoff Distance penalty, to be applied to the Takeoff Weight extracted from the "Charts" for a Rolling Start. I do performance engineering work for aircraft rangeing from quite small to VERY large, and find that even for the smallest aircraft that I do work for, the correction will vary from Zero (obviously not Runway limited) to several thousand Kg, and going on through to "Can't takeoff at all unless a Standing Start is used". My solution is to produce RTOWs for the optimum (Standing Start) condition, and in the RTOW table supply the deduction to be applied if the actual aircraft weight makes the preferred Rolling Start possible.
There are essentially 3 types of Takeoff procedures - (1) The Standing Start, (2) the Rolling Start, and (3) the Roll-On start. The Standing Start is USUALLY that used for certification purposes by the manufacturer. The Rolling start (brakes release and thrust application within a specified time frame) is preferred over the standing start, but only if either (a) the manufacturer has certified the aircraft in this way, or (b) suitable corrections are made to the standing start calculated data as alluded to by
John Tullamarine. The latter technique, Roll-On start, assumes that taxy speed is maintained onto the runway and initiation of the Takeoff roll. Most schools of thought (including my original mentor, McDonald Douglas), equate this with being equivalent with the Standing Start. I tend to agree with them, but am concerned that some pilots may accept 2 or 3 knots '90 degree turn on' taxy speed as satisfying the Roll-On requirement as opposed to the 10 knots that is assumed to make them identical to the Standing Start.
Be aware that there is a big difference between Rolling and Roll-On start (the latter is the one that, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to the Standing Start).
I won't be drawn into a discussion regarding which aircraft types are involved here. The basic principals are the same, but I fear that someone may use data inappropriate to their own aircraft, and end up using a generic BAe McBoeingBus technique. Check your own AFM!
Keep safe, know the numbers.
Old Smokey