This Ci 738 reported a problem reading the speed as well IIRC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21qZPaCRSQI

What a bunch of amateurs at HR trying to defend this take off - you would get more respect if you just hold up your hands and say we ****** up, we are human! Not try and tell us the moon is made out of cream cheese.

Presumably, since they were rotating, they had passed V1. Are you advocating a stop after V1?

I think the 'monday morning fly halfs, and scrum halfs' who are sharpening their knives for a beheading are still waiting for their turn in the real world. If these guys screwed up they did a good job of not burying themselves in a burning hole. Let's wait for the full facts: although I share the pessimism in that.

There is no problem at all departing with flaps1 on a 4000m rwy even with a 800.

This question was asked to BFU

Their answer:
"BFU has no knowledge about this incident.
BFU is not investigating."

Looking at the footage, does it seem likely to anyone else, that the technique used by the PF may be something that he has used previously (on many occasions) in a Mirage or an F-16?
Although I'm not sure how that fits in with managing an encounter with wake turbulence.

V Speeds
 

(SLF here)

I've been watching a lot of YT videos about flight training etc. While these 152s etc. didn't set any speed bugs, part of the takeoff briefing was sometimes, "In case of engine failure below 500ft, land straight ahead on the runway, if below 1000ft, land straight ahead in a field, if above, turn back and land on whatever runway".

Living near EDDN, I see 738s etc. taking off from the 2700m runway with what looks like 50+% to spare.

Now I wonder - is it possible that V1 on the 4000m runway at EDDF is actually above Vr or even V2?

I guess it's possibly a matter of definition - a problem above V2 is probably not a rejected takeoff any more but a forced landing that just happens to be on the runway just taken off of... ;-)

This will never happen in certain cultures, captain is God and is never wrong. Blame it on the ATC, weather, maintenance, aircraft, passengers, but - captain is never wrong.

Personally, I don't know what I would have done in this scenario, either abort or continue the roll until GS approaches tyre limit and then rotate. Certainly I wouldn't try to hold the aircraft at ~ 10° pitch or so and wait for it to gain speed to finally lift off. It's not a soft field takeoff in a C172...

Isn't it quite astonishing that none of the media seem to pick up this story and the subsequent Twitter message?

PA on TKOFF
 

Still remember that day when travelling as pax on a RAM flight out of MRS to CMN.
Captain was still doing his welcome PA during roll out.
Finally ended up 'I wish you a pleasant flight' while we were then doing a good 80kts.
Wasn't impressed and wondered when the approach brief would start...

I'm interested here in the question of whether it's better to try and continue takeoff rather than reject.

Given they had probably 3000m+ of runway left is it really a good idea to try and force the thing into the air, when you don't have any real idea why it isn't flying? Yes if it's a short runway then you may have no option, but with that much runway remaining, a rejected takeoff needn't even be aggressive.

I'm always slightly perplexed by the way in which rejected take-offs are talked about as extremely risky manouvers, anywhere above 100 knots. Especially if you're in a narrowbody, and have a lot of runway left, what's the big deal? Think about high altitude airports, the same planes are routinely landing at ground speeds of 170+ knots and it's no big deal.

A 700 will use about 1200 meters from start to rotation on a derated take off. You can take off, land and stop safely with a touch of brakes and idle reverse on a 4000 meter runway.
Fl 1 is perfectly safe on both 700 and 800 NGs. The only time I use more is when I am runway limited.
Yes, you get less tail clearance with FL 1, but if you know how to rotate an aircraft, it will never be a problem.

Not Like AF447
 

At least he didn't keep pulling, hoping it would start to fly like was done in AF447.:D

Yes, if V1 is limted by Vr rather than stopping distance. If they were heavier, Vr would be higher and so would V1. Would it then suddenly become unsafe to stop at that higher speed?

It's about using common sense. If you know you've got 3000m of runway left, you pull back, the plane won't fly, you don't know why, perhaps staying on the ground and starting to stop with plenty of room left for gentle braking is best?

Planes land all day long at high altitude airports at 170 knots +. If you're in a narrow body on a 4000m runway, stopping after V1 isn't an issue. Too many seem to think a plane has some kind of self destruct mode built into it if you even think about it and would rather take a potentially crippled plane into the air.

Of course, if there is ambiguity about stopping distance remaining, its different, but here there absolutely isn't

I quite like the idea of being flown by pilots who can not only **** up but can get themselves unfecked.

Novel, according to some who post on here...

It appears that we have the "CVR"

https://youtu.be/s8ptLtYt7wk

Sure, it hasn't failed me yet :)

Realulli---no never, V1 can never be faster than VR or V2....

A single engine Cessna 152 is just a little bit different to a twin engine Jet.....

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi..._DEP_SEQ07.pdf

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi..._DEP-SEQ04.pdf

And this JAR25 extract

http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/S...en/JAR-25.html

Only in America!! :D