Nothing wrong with a good old corolla...
Cant open the link, would be interested to read this report..most probably happened to a wide body.
Just read it briefly, he used more than 90 deg line up...and he stepped on the brakes until full thrust was set..

Laughable
 

Tennis courts have a better surface than that :mad: runway had. Sir Robert McAlpine will be turning in his grave.

AAIB Bulletin: 6/2007 G-DOCT EW/C2005/07/01

My question wether you are flying a jet or not is that standing on the brakes with full thrust is useless and will increase the risk of foreign debris ingestion especially in crosswind conditions.
Rolling take off is preferred, line up, increase thrust,stable then full thrust.NO BRAKES.
Brake only if static run up is required due to icing conditions.

Good read.
the last text could be interesting for our BA friend:

de facto
 

Thats why I am NOT a line pilot....I love the MD-11 moments:E

As far as surfaces are concerned..

de facto

At airports like LHR and LGW you are required to be in position to roll by the time the previous aircraft lifts off. If you are still p***ing about lining up when you are cleared for take-off you have wasted very valuable runway capacity. At these and many other airports the cumulative wasted capacity has an enormous cost in congestion, wasted fuel while queueing, arrival/departure delay costs. The cost runs into millions for the airlines concerned and has a significant environmental impact too. If you think its okay to take your own sweet time unless ATC have told you to expedite you are not only selfish and wasteful but are also in breach of the UK AIP.

And the time difference between your lining up and a 90 time is what?
If ATC clears the traffic for takeoff and then a tells you to line up,hiw long dies it take a jet to get airborne???
Are you really that bright?or just trying to be a smart @@?
Please fwd me the AIP where it mentions any line up time allowance,id be most grateful.

Last one I timed was in the A32/B73 class and I think it took 23 secs from roll to take off.

de facto,

Much appreciated, the reference you posted from the Boeing Safety Guide was exactly what I was looking for.

777,
you are very welcome.

de facto,

I would love to know what type you fly, is it an An-224 with four engines turned off, or maybe a B-52

Are you honestly saying you need every single inch available for ASDA purposes on a 4000m runway?

Having just done a "fag packet" calculation, you'd lose more than 20m in distance if about 40 pax were overweight on the standard by 20 Kgs in an A320, but you would rather put stress on a piece of very highly stressed metal to save yourself 20m. The mind boggles.

mr clown!
consider yourself reactivated...

Just a couple of thoughts:

1) On a flex/derated takeoff there is a fair extra margin already gained from the actual temperature being lower than flex temp. (lower TAS), so not doing a 90 degree turn will not be a problem. (as long as the line up is sensible)

2) On a performance limited runway it will be an issue. If you feel incapable of performing a 90 degree turn then adjust your performance to counter the extra distance used in lining up.

Correct that using ASSUm Temp, your stop distance will be less.(lower TAS).
By how much?I dont know.
The only thing is that any time my weight is below the Runway limit weight ill get some extra distance margin,but how much?
I leave the stopway to the CLOWN above.

As far as im concern im done here, initial poster obviously was satisfied by the BOEING recommendation i posted.

We had a question about that issue some time ago when a colleague trying to do a 90° lineup on a non-standard cleared 4000m runway slipped into the grass on the opposide side (the airport only cleared 10m around the yellow line). The interesting answer from boeing was that a minimum distance lineup is considered in the performance software with a usual distance between end of runway and maingear between 2 and 6m. The difference between actual and assumed temperature is taken into account and with derate plus assumed temperature plus improved climb speed schedule a 4000m runway can become very short indeed even for a lightweight 737-700.

Lately they introduced an option for increased lineup allowance which allows distances up to around 100m from the end of the runway, how much is shown for each runway. However, it is the operators choice if he makes that option available or standard for the performance calculation.

Spot on Denti, why risk the chance of a runway excursion for the sake of trying to "steal" a couple of metres of tarmac.

Even something as stupid as a temperature change will effect your performance by more than 10 metres, I think that for every two degree increase there is a 0.08 difference in EPR roughly on an A320, so say you do an assumed temp T/O with a slightly off ATIS temp or TAT reading then you will increase your T/O length.

And yet you want to reduce it even more?!

If Boeing didn't want the aircraft making 90 degrees turns they'd have it listed as a limitation.

As previously noted some aircraft do have 10 kt restrictions on 90 degree turns.

Cargo clown,
did you read post 37 and the whole Denti post?can you read?

Yellow line
 

Hi there!

Can you please name an official document where it says that the yellow line at the end of the runway is a "taxi-out" line and not a "taxi-in" line? Hard to quote to a trainee without documentary proof

Thanks