Dani,
I am flying 737. Above I wrote an exact quote from the 737NG FCOM, to repeat:
"sight along the upper surface of the glare shield with a small amount of the
airplane nose structure visible".
If you don't see the actual nose of the Airbus, it won't make a difference. My point is that if you sit high enough you should still be able to see the horizon and not have it "hidden" below the glare shield. The upper surface of the glare shield should be just as good a reference as the nose structure.
On a day with low weight and a long runway (hence heavy de-rate and improved climb), the V2+20 pitch is often only 10-12 degs, from this pitch it is still possible to see the horizon when sitting in the correct position.
I seriously doubt that there is a 1 deg margin on any longer jets (wide body or not), unless someone screwed the rotation up, or like Melbourne used wrong data (which makes it a pretty bad example).
Hence, it shouldn't be necessary to judge to the last degree, if that's necessary something was done wrong (like the "too fast initial rotation, pause" technique). You should be judging a rate instead, that you don't need to make a pause since the aircraft is safely in the air long before passing 10-11 degs. That is my point in case - you will be much better at judging a rate looking outside than on a 2D instrument.
I am flabbergasted and speechless by your comment about landing. Just to make sure, you are saying that a safe landing accomplished by looking out the window is due to "
luck"??
