Air X 340 at Brasil...
 

The perfect looooonngggg take off :-)
Btw, lots of talking these last few days at south american aviation foruns about this.

https://youtu.be/Y6PNFzVvlWo
And
https://youtu.be/XbWaXdA5jY0

"I thought you told me the OAT was 12°C!"

Wrong engines. Should put those big Rollers on.

If he had an engine failure then this is what it might have looked like, but if it is an all engines working take off, mmmmmm. The main wheels literally break ground as the runway ends.

I was surprised at the length of the runway in question. 10600ft or 3240m.

It begs the question of how this aircraft could operate non-stop from Brussels Charleroi to Hong Kong for Air Belgium, as the runway there is only 2550m

I've heard it said the only thing allowing the A340 to take off is the curvature of the earth...

It's hot and 2000 ft above the sea in Viracopos.
Brussel is not as often 30C hot and basically sea level.

Looked like the rotation was a little slow but i'm no expert on these matters. There is a youtube clip of a Swiss A340 leaving Shanghai and they also get a EGT warning of one of the engines.
Comment was along the lines: nothing we did not expect, checked some stuff and reduced to climb thrust normally which cleared the warning.

Rotation is a bit slow.. It took about 6s from what I see, whereas it should be done at around 3°s per second, which would give about 3s between nlg and mlg takeoff

About ten years ago, my office building overlooked Boeing Field. At the time, if one of the engine manufactures got a little behind, they'd fly in new 777 engines on an Antonov to save shipping time and prevent late deliveries.
Several of us once watched an Antonov 124 taking off heading north towards Seattle. If was like Global's video - barely got off the ground by the end of the runway, and then it was so low we lost sight of it below buildings. We all watched in amazement (and a little horror), just waiting for a fireball as headed towards the taller buildings in Seattle. Last I saw, it had made a slight turn to the left and was headed out over Elliott Bay (i.e. the Seattle waterfront). Fortunately there were no tall sailing ships out there :rolleyes:
The amazing thing is, this was leaving - most likely empty of cargo, just fuel...

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man (and aircraft system designers) to put a sensor in the tail where they put the little skid things on some aircraft that can detect ground proximity and compensate for excessive rotation in the same way that ther are various laws imposed on stick input in flight to keep within a safe envelope. Of course, it's time (=money), weight (=money) and money that's preventing it. Probably not worth it for the A340 anyway, do they even make them any more?

Nothing new except perhaps for different reasons. The various Pilots Notes for British RAF wartime aircraft did not contain take off performance charts. You simply applied full throttle and lifted off at the very end hoping airspeed was sufficient to get you off the ground. Forget obstacle clearance.
I recall taking off on several occasions from the tropical Momote airstrip at Manus Island to the north of New Guinea in the SW Pacific region in the early 1950's. The coral strip was 5000 feet long ending in the ocean at one end and a lagoon at the other. The rear gunner of our Avro Lincoln remarked about the slipstream from the four Rolls Royce Merlins ruffling the surface of the sea as we flew in ground effect off the end of the strip. Operations normal in those days

Not talking about this particular case, but is not one technique to maximise the 2nd segment performance is to rotate at the latest moment, tyre speed permitting. The early 707 and the like used to have up close inspections of departure end lights.

Folks,
All I can say is most of you are obviously talking about matters of which you have no relevant knowledge. That is, takeoff performance calculations and accountability, and the used of reduced thrust takeoffs.
That the aircraft becomes airborne close to the end of the pavement signified nothing.
The Antonov at Canberra is nothing exceptional.
The video that is your "primary evidence" shows nothing exceptional, and it looks like a very well controlled rotation and initial climb, to me. The initial rotate attitude may have been a little low, based on the slight increase toward the end of what appears to be clearway. Without a runway survey, I cannot assess the runway plus stopway plus clearway, so I have no way of judging where the screen height should have been achieved in the video.
Tootle pip!!