Ryanair uses all the runway.

[RAT 5]

Those calls are made in a higher office.

By Sod who has the thunder-bolts at his finger tips.

[RAT 5]

The posted photograph in post #65 will answer your question.

[Doors to Automatic]

The Edinburgh take-off was fine. Still 1500ft to go after the aircraft became airborne.

Here is a normal take-off from Bristol. TFS is the destination so likely to be heavy. As I mentioned earlier the plane should be well in the air with 1000ft to go as indeed it is here.........

https://youtu.be/Xge2CC02pTM

The take-off in question on this post was NOT normal. No amount of idiotic criticism of SLF with iPhones detracts from that. In fact it makes me question the judgement of you supposedly professional aviators.

[misd-agin]

Talk about the height of hubris. Are you even a pilot? Pilots are trying to tell you that given the information available they can't tell you if the takeoff was or wasn't normal and you, perhaps as a non pilot, are calling us "supposedly professional aviators"? What was the aircraft weight in any of the examples you're comparing? Flap settings? TO? TO1? TO2? Any derates used? Does that matter?

What's your "professional aviator" resume?

[cactusbusdrvr]

Doesn't matter what the weight or flap setting was. Whatever it was it was incorrect for that takeoff. We use balanced field limits for takeoff, a balance between runway available, takeoff thrust settings, flap settings given the weight for that takeoff. Something there was wrong.

Improved climb, where you trade runway for increased rotation speed would cause a long takeoff roll. But given the lack of apparent obstacles off that departure I can't see the need for that type of takeoff. Again, something was not set correctly on this departure, or the crew blew some V calls. The lack of hard, gray surface in front of you is usually a good indication that you need to be flying.

And my resume is 28k hours, typed in 737/757/767 and Airbus 320 family.

[kungfu panda]

Originally Posted by misd-agin

Talk about the height of hubris. Are you even a pilot? Pilots are trying to tell you that given the information available they can't tell you if the takeoff was or wasn't normal and you, perhaps as a non pilot, are calling us "supposedly professional aviators"? What was the aircraft weight in any of the examples you're comparing? Flap settings? TO? TO1? TO2? Any derates used? Does that matter?

What's your "professional aviator" resume?

This was not a normal take off. You must question the professionalism of those who suggest that achieving almost no altitude at the piano keys of the opposite end of the runway is a normal takeoff.

[parabellum]

Kungfu Panda - You don't give up, do you?

This was not a normal take off. You must question the professionalism of those who suggest that achieving almost no altitude at the piano keys of the opposite end of the runway is a normal takeoff.

What you have seen on the video clip is not acceptable as evidence, in any form. Please post the factual evidence, i.e. hard figures, independently recorded and obtained that you have to support your claim and you may wish to consider the phenomenon of optical illusion whilst you are gathering those numbers..

But given the lack of apparent obstacles off that departure I can't see the need for that type of takeoff. Again, something was not set correctly on this departure, or the crew blew some V calls. The lack of hard, gray surface

Another wild statement posted cactusbusdriver, without a scrap of factual evidence to support it.

misd-agin - great post! I think we can see how public hanging by lynch mobs came about!

[Capn Bloggs]

Pucka!

[RobsonCanolo]

Kungfu Panda.

Have a look in the easa regs performance class c and among many things there and assuming no other limiting factors for this takeoff you only need a takeoff run not exceeding the takeoff run available. so from a performance standpoint and with said assumptions it is acceptable to just be airborne at the far end.

[EGPFlyer]

Except the 737 is perf class A...

[RobsonCanolo]

Ok but it’s the same for class a. The takeoff run should not exceed takeoff run available. So again it’s thin ice to say anything is wrong imho.

[parkfell]

Parabellum

I would suggest that notwithstanding the video was taken by a phone, it does provide prima face evidence.
There might be a valid explanation for what we see, but can you say it is perfectly normal for Bristol?

I would be interested to know why an optical illusion might to have occurred? It seems an uncomplicated picture (Capn Bloggs) to me.

You are starting to become hysterical ~ lynch mobs; really?
Instead of taking a swipe at everyone, how about explaining why it is perfectly normal.
You are simply whipping up further interest in the event. Calm down

[sleeper]

Mr Parabellum. Why on earth are you trying to belittle the iphone video. There is no optical illusion at all. The aircraft clearly is only just airborne when the runway ends. There is no way around that and it is absolutely not normal. And before you dismiss me as well, I am a professional too.

[PT6Driver]

Just a reminder that in today's world derated, assumed temperature and improved climb are the normal defaults when making takeoff calculations at all airports, as this helps with engine maintenance costs amongst others.
Also at Bristol the clearway will be taken acount of in the calculations.

[jack11111]

RobsonCanolo wrote:

"Ok but it’s the same for class a. The takeoff run should not exceed takeoff run available. So again it’s thin ice to say anything is wrong imho."

OK, let me get this straight...as long as I don't use the grass at the end of the runway, it's all good!! OMG!

[jmvdb22]

As long as you don't hit anything else as well

[Right Way Up]

The takeoff run should not exceed takeoff run available

But that assumes you lose an engine at V1!

[RobsonCanolo]

jack11111 Perhaps it’s better to ask you to point out how high you should be at the far end instead? Reading through the regs EASA i don't see any such limit but perhaps you are right if airlines add additional constraints in the takeoff data calculations but knowing the industry for some time now i have serious reasons to doubt that.

If you want to maximize the payload for a given day and runway there is no need for more runway ahead since you are already committed at an earlier point to go. Clearly there are issues with margin and assuming a proper technique and as always other assumptions in play, it’s at least from a performance standpoint i don't see an issue not using the whole runway for the run if needed.

But that assumes you lose an engine at V1!

It means at V1 you need to take the first action to stop or if deciding to go you still have the performance to go. And if deciding to go it means you still should be able to be airborne at the far end taking into account the lower acceleration due to one engine.

Flap config, derate, assumed temp, bleeds, etc are just the variables at hand to get to the point where things work out for a given payload and data to minimize costs wear and maximize payload which i don't see any reason for them not trying to go for at every takeoff.

[RAT 5]

And you are supposed to Stop by the end of the Stopway; if you execute the stop no later than V1-ish, give or take the current 1 or 2 seconds. And looking at he photo in post #65 there doesn't appear to a lot of stopway. And given that the braking action of grass is unpredictable, but certainly significantly less than tarmac, how they ever make a sensible calculation that you should stop within the stowaway defeats me. I wonder what coefficient is used for the last bit: it can't be the same as tarmac, unless they factor in the wheels sinking up to the hubs, but that doesn't happen instantaneously. It's not like an F1 gravel trap.
We'd need to know where on the runway V1 was called & Vr and how the rotation was executed to be sure of anything; but I can categorically say that on all the diverse european runways I've operated from, B732/3/4/7/8, I don't remember seeing the end quite so close as that. I suspect the wheels were still down as the crossed the end of the tarmac.

It does concern me that, with i-pad performance, there seems blind faith and little understanding of what is going on when the numbers are entered into the FMC. Pilots do their CPL & Perf A course. They know the rules inside out. Yeah, but what do they really mean and what does it look like 'on the day'? They then assume, correctly, that the i-pad has all the reg's in the program and the numbers in will give the correct legal numbers out. But that has removed all 'feel' for what is going on. It's just another 'magenta line'.

I used to teach the 'gross error check' philosophy, especially with takeoffs & load sheets, TOD's distance to go, etc. Guys asked, "what's the point? We have the FMC" "So you have a feel what what's correct and not, and because some other guy made the load sheet, but I sign for it, and because I don't always trust the FMC. It's tool not my wife who must be obeyed." And now there is the i-pad.
Sure enough we detected a 10ton error in the load sheet. One day someone else didn't and they had a tail strike.
Same with performance. If the calculated N1% seems too low, it probably is. But you'll only know that if you have an idea of what is a correct range; i.e. paid attention on previous trips.

[Doors to Automatic]

Originally Posted by kungfu panda

This was not a normal take off. You must question the professionalism of those who suggest that achieving almost no altitude at the piano keys of the opposite end of the runway is a normal takeoff.

Yes, precisely the point I was making. Those that dismiss the "SLF" and claim that this might have been a normal takeoff hiding behind jargon connected with weights, N1s, Power settings etc are the ones I was referring to.