Here we go again...
Thank you for clarifying that the rotation was after V1.
As for the rest of your post, you are still not grasping the concept that no matter how perceptive you consider yourself to be you did not know the circumstances surrounding the decision to use an intersection on the day you quote.
Why did the crew of one flight out of very many similar flights decide to do something different which relied on reduced margin for errors/failures/safety with corresponding gain that could only be measured in time/economy?
How do you conclude that margins were reduced in any way?
Did you see the performance calcs? If so were was they adhered to? Unless that is the case then I cannot see how any 'margin for error' has been reduced.
You have the type, its the trusty 738. I've given you an airfield elevation - sea level more or less as makes very little difference. You don't need a name. There are no airfield related restrictions to be factored in.
It is a little more complex than using a generic 738 on a generic airfield. If you want to find out if your crew were being negligent as you apparently think they were then we need to know FOR THAT FLIGHT the exact weights, configs, flap settings and the power settings they used and compare them to what you think they should have used! Ideally we need to see their company take off performance manual and the loadsheet...see Slip and Turn, it isn't enough to google the tyre marks unless you know which ones are yours!!!!
So I am not one to unconditionally accept that if I possess Perf A calcs in my sweaty hand or programmed into my machine, QED I can leave 2300 feet behind me when I start to roll.
So what are you going to accept? Assuming your training continues and you intend to fly a commercial aircraft which manuals are you going to choose to ignore and which to obey? If the performance manual is not prudent enough for you then I suggest you ask why JAA regulations allow their use when clearly looking out of the side window at fixed points is far more accurate.
Sorry I forgot your back seat judgment is better than the perf calcs...
I might perhaps wonder if those Perf A calcs I relied upon were yer actual gospel. They might have been ... just ... if it is further a fact that another 1200 feet used post V1 to wheels off is typical. I don't know. Sounds feasible, if a bit tight.
If time and time again I feel brakes graunching (protesting) at the end of a landing roll on 25 at Stansted which has included use of reverse thrust on touch down, and that's apparently necessary in order to make the last fast turn off, then I can start making some assumptions can't I?
Are you trying to say that because on landing in Stansted using some reverse and after hearing some brake noise you pass a turn off occasionally that equates to RTO braking performance?
Please tell me that isn't what you are trying to say...
gain that could only be measured in time/economy?
Slip and Turn, when no safety is compromised how do you intend your flight is conducted if not with regard to time/economy?
If you do get into the seat of a commercial aircraft you'll find that safety, time and economy are very much at the forefront of your daily thoughts!