Also very interesting, 00:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kle80KB_s3I

It was a Boeing 727 and it was only the valley at the end of the runway that saved the aircraft as the aircraft ended up flying below the runway elevation after taking out the approach lights and the localiser.

Accident report PDF link

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...DRwQjVR1Npo2Cg

Reminds me of the "Bristol Cowboy" in the early 1980'S? They took out the approach lights on the opposite RW. Now if someone had filmed that, it would have been a frightening watch.

LTNman - I meant to type 727 - typo, will correct - thanks!

I suspect the performance calculations on the EFB were correctly completed; that the crew assumed the Boeing OPT would provide sufficient margins; and that the rotation was slightly after Vr was called. Swiss cheese.

Using the 'optimum' setting on that programme minimises pilot input/consideration of actual physical margins to the screen height, whereas the landing calculations always provide physical distances that one can compare with the available distance to the preferred exit or runway stop end.

On a lighter note, the video reminds me of base training, where every take off was a bum clenching 'experience'.

All this pontification could be finally put to bed if the FDM information was ever revealed.
It does seem rather "tight".

There was an even closer shave at Aldergrove in the summer which ended up being investigated by the AAIB ~ special 2/2017. See October 2017 monthly bulletin.

The Bristol Cowboy article from Flight International is available here, taking out the approach lights was the least of his problems.

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%203937.html

BRS to the canaries/southern Spain is a fairly common route and a full 738 with 13t of fuel is pretty limited. Pretty much all Flap 25 takeoffs very close to TOPL and you’re right, there isn’t much runway available on rotation. Pulled that with a slightly late or slow rotation and it looks worse than it is.

Don’t forget that the slope on the departure end of 27 is quite significant, making for a worse visual picture than on a billiard table flat airfield.

The runway at BRS was extended a few years ago by diverting the A38, there is no way of extending it more because it is on the top of a hill and the ground falls off at both ends.
There was a proposal to move it to Filton but the good idea was crushed by howls of protest from local residents.

I am looking forward to the time when 7 years old and 13 yrs old tell me if I am good to go or not.
Until then I stick with what Boeing has tested and tipple check and calculate the
worst case at the time for No Go.
There is no margin except for the built in regulatory and tested.
Something I am quite happy with.

I have taken the 737-800 to the limit may times as per SOP and Manual but never past.
It does perform, with standard margin!
And it will in the N-1 case after V1 at BRS!
Providing YOU perform!
Rather simple stuff , relay.
Lots of rudder until Vr and a rotation rate of no less then 2.5 per second and a V2 climb which gives anything from 400 to 700 feet per minute.
NOT the two engine 2500feet per minute AND acceleration towards V2 plus 15 to 25 kts you are used to!
Not saying the CVR would be something children should listen to uncensored, but it is perfectly safe.
3000 meters are arguably safer , then again we manage to mess that up on occasions , dont we!!
Intersection takeoff with massive Flex or de-rate is the standard , is it not.

OK, as one of the children with a phone, am I hearing here that takeoff configuration is commonly setup to use every inch of available runway ? That takeoff looks like it allowed for less than 1% margin. I confess that I find that surprising. Wouldn't a soft tyre, an ingested sparrow or even an unexpected squall of wind up the chuff have a bigger effect on take-off distance than that? Or is there time and information to allow you to detect that you are not precisely on the expected speed-distance trajectory and give it a bit more wellie ?

Making fun of the I-phone passengers is rather foolish. The video shows that when the runway end flashes by the aircraft has just finished rotating and is barely airborne. Whatever the reason this is way to late/low.
It is very strange to see the apparently professionals attacking the slf's and claiming that all was ok. It wasn't.

I hate seeing colleagues (albeit in another company) being strung up by virtue of mobile phone evidence...

captain F

Agreed, indeed probably before then..hard to tell because of the image quaity but if you use the leading edge wing route/runway edge sightline as datum it looks to me as if rotation has started by at least 1500' to go i.e. looks like there's evidence of pitching as they cross the TDZ marker 500' in/downwind from the main TDZ marking at the upwind end of the runway.

Whether the rotation was slow or not is up to the 737 guys to judge but I'm not sure we can judge off that video. As for height over the runway end.. we all know about possible lenses and forshortening etc, surely that has to be a don't know?.......

I've seen enough legit heavy (i.e. right up at RTOW) takeoffs out of hot and high places on a heavy twin to know how close it can look...mostly at night so thankfully I've yet to make youthingy or similar.

yes gear lever, seen that here before when it happened, no flaps

AAIB bulletin (page 3) with the first report being a 738 21 July 2017 taking out the lights at Belfast due a thrust setting which was significantly below that required for the conditions of the day.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...in_10-2017.pdf

They had at least flap 1.

Back on topic:
To me this looks like an uncomfortable take off... :)

The OPT does provide detailed margins in the Acc-Stop scenario, i.e. how many meters remaining if you must stop. The Acc-Go scenario is a bit more complicated, but IIRC it'll tell you the limiting factor (field length or obstacle normally). How many inches will fit under your boots is a guess only.

Apologies to those who do use these numbers as a reference, but my experience says those numbers are never looked at, let alone acted upon, in this particular airline. Whatever the computer says, goes.

I understand it wouldn't change things in this particular take-off as full thrust was likely already selected, but it's worth thinking about.

We don’t know the ATOW.
We don’t know the derate(s).
We don’t know V1 & Vr.
We don’t know if they were using increased V2. (Bit short for that but...)
We don’t know whether this was “tight” for some reason or whether it was completely normal and expected.

In other words, complete speculation.

What we do know is that in normal airline ops, performance software optimises as much as it can and on this length of runway it normally ends up as a balanced field. Also remember that TODA can include clearway, which is beyond the end of the paved surface, so your 35’ will not necessarily be achieved at that point OEI (but it will by the end of the clearway).

What is the stopping distance from V1 of a heavy 737-800 with RTO?

I believe that the Boeing training manual states that with both engines operating and a normal take off performed the aircraft should be at a minimum height of 150' above the runway end. Check "Go/Stop decision near V1".