The aeroplane is a good one, but it's getting old. The last ones were built 17 years ago, and they are now operated in an environemt where cost control is rife and often to the peak of their performance limits. I rarely made a MTOW departure in a pax 747. Many of the departures I flew in a Cargo 747 were at MTOW or close. It's no suprise that overruns are a common theme amongst the examples I gave.
Dan, I have to jump in here. Having over 6000hours on the classic and another 3000 on the 400 I think I might be in a position to say a few things.
First of all operating at or close to MTOW (structural) in any aircraft is not a thing to be taken lightly. The entire issue of V1 and stopping is a discussion that applies to any aircraft, old or new. If you look at the rejected takeoff decision, one could make an argument the entire logic of V1 speeds is illogical. In reality, V1 speeds only apply once, that is during certification when the aircraft is new, with new brakes, new tyres and test pilots in the seats. The speeds, in my opinion, are very optimistic and do not represent the actual ability of the aircraft to reject in a normal line operation.
I have flown with many carriers who realise that problem and have adopted a wet V1 policy at all times. Both Boeing and Airbus have lengthy discussions about rejected takeoffs and how the logic should be applied. In fact, there was a AA DC-10 that rejected a take off at DFW below V1 and still departed the runway. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft, crew or the decision. However, the brakes were well worn, still within limits, the tyres were worn, but within limits. The NTSB certainly had some harsh words to the FAA about the entire V1 problem.
Having flown all the Classic models, I find the aircraft extremely pilot friendly and probably the most enjoyable aircraft to fly, after the 400. The examples you cited were for the most part not aircraft related but more CRM and decision making.
Just my $.02 worth!
Last edited by Phil Squares; 22nd October 2008 at 13:38.