Dramatic late and labored takeoffs
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 03. 2020
- In the first takeoff the plane must have been fully loaded to need so much of the 10000 foot runway, and still have its left main landing gear rise and then touchdown again before finally clearing the tarmac - for a moment I thought it was coming straight through the fence!
We paid the whole runway. We use the whole runway
Seen this comment far too many times. Unoriginal and plagiarized to the enth degree!
Sam Chui
Sean - P I think I‘m crying
*for
@@bh2861 uNoRiGiNaL aNd pLaGaRiSeD. It's a joke dude
30 years in the cockpit, and in my opinion every single one here is normal. Nothing "Dramatic "
Thank you. (Seriously) The title was clearly done to add drama where there is none and to get views.
Finally. I was waiting it, and you finally say it
Now that i know that you are a partner what aircraft do you fly
The guy who took these videos is clearly the same guy who works for our local real estate agents.. he specialises in odd angles and fish eye lens to make things appear not quite as they really are....As is done here.
Hats off to all those Pilots what a difficult job!!
Is this Capt Craig of British airways?
amazing how a long lens makes everything look so much closer than it actual is.
Number of dramatic late and labored takeoffs in this video: Zero.
I had an extremely late takeoff in Boise, Idaho one time. We were on a 737-900 that was completely crammed full, and everyone had lots of bags. The runway was long so I wasn’t worried, but during take off we passed the thousand foot markers on the far end without any sign of rotation... when the pilot pulled back, I didn’t feel any lift AT ALL and we went nowhere, and tbh for a few seconds I thought I was going to die. I’m a frequent flyer and a pilot myself, so for something to intimidate me like that was a big deal. Anyways, the runway threshold markers filled the window and right then, the plane finally lifted, and I could’ve sworn the only reason we didn’t hit the approach lighting system was because the gears simply went left or right of the first row of lights. It was a pretty terrifying takeoff and I was pretty spooked for the first 10 minutes of the flight. Do your weight and balance, kids!
Luke Matthews
Wonder what the temperature and humidity was for that day?
The telephoto lens distorts the view. Although reasonably long take-off runs, most of these aircraft were airborne well before the displaced threshold which itself is 400m or so from the actual end of the runway.
"If the cameraman wasn't decapitated by the wing, that means we can add more cargo." - *Aerosucre*
I've been flying for 30+ years and never heard the word "tarmac" on the radio or in the cockpit. The press loves it though. A shallow skip on takeoff in gusty winds isn't abnormal nor does it demonstrate a flaw in flying technique nor performance. Don't discount the dramatic effect of the zoom lens. Great video!
You pilots dont get enough credit that you deserve...you risk your life to take us places....and you pilots ...deserve that...thank you....
Risk their life?????
@@stag3t-muspsa910 Flying is usually fun and the good carriers pay well.
@@iain8837 yes...while there is a crazy emergency....they are very calm....even when they knkw there probly going down....our lives are in ther hands.
Iain - They have been known to fall out of the sky, if they make it that far.
Thankfully, due to some skilled pilots, on a flight I was on to Honolulu, that almost did fall out of the sky... didn’t. I was on one such flight about 23 years ago. Still wish I had gotten the crew’s names, so I could thank them personally. It took a lot of quick thinking, and skill to keep that plane up, and then land it, when the flaps on one wing failed... as we were making, what should have been a ‘gentle’ right turn, became a turn in which the wings were ALMOST perpendicular to the ocean. The pilots recovered it, and then landed ‘hot’... with the landing slope being MUCH higher than any plane I’d ever seen or been on at HNL airport, and the nose of the plane up for most of the landing time on the runway.
I did get to thank a pilot who made a it through a rough takeoff out of Denver, Colorado after we landed. I told him “Thank you for that...” and, as I was trying to think of how to describe the takeoff... he says... “You mean the ‘Oh God, I’m going to die!!!’ takeoff?” I smiled, laughed and said... “Yes... THAT one.” He managed to coax that poor plane up as it fought hard for every foot. And, for every foot it rose... it would then drop two feet. It felt like it did that many times, and then suddenly it was smooth flying.
And, yes, I realize it had to do with Denver’s elevation, and the fact that there was a LOT of crosswind that would alternate direction (It hadn’t been very windy on the ground). I could ‘feel’ the winds changing direction, and then it would also feel as though the poor plane just couldn’t find ANY lift between the changes. I know that wasn’t the general ‘norm’ as I had flown in AND out of Denver 10 times that year to help a friend when she was going through chemotherapy. I had also flown from Denver to Colorado Springs on each of my 5 trips from home to help her.
A good pilot ALWAYS deserve to get a LOT of credit for what they do, even if they don’t have a problem. ❤️ I would have loved to have been a pilot myself.
Sorry... got carried away remembering those flights. 😉
Normal takeoffs with the camera angle making it appear that the takeoffs are late.
Captain to First Officer: "Look, there's Flugsnug, let's give him some material for his channel!"
It’s not nearly as close as it looks. I promise.
Camera "magic"
Forced perspective and positioning yourself behind a hill to make the runway look shorter is all that’s going on here.
Here's what he did:
1) Use a zoom lens at maximum zoom to compress the distance.
2) Shoot straight down the runway, so you don't have any landmarks for distance reference
3) Spend about 1 hour shooting takeoffs
4) Post with a click-bait title, and hope enough gullible idiots follow you..
Telephoto lenses distort linear distances - they appear to shrink/compress the distance between the foreground and background in a photograph. Some of these runways are longer than they appear in this video. The aircraft aren’t as close to the end of the runway as they seem to be.
True but you can use the runway lines to give you an indication of how much runway there is left. The last takeoff you can see he almost reached the threshold lines which is almost the end.
The "We pay the whole runway, we use th whole runway" spirit
Just like, any landing you can walk away from is a good one, any take off you don’t hit anything is equally a good one.
Retired corporate pilot here with 22k hours in my book.
That is a great thing to say
@Peter no kidding, i visit Indonesia about 2-3 times a year and island hop wherever i need to go. I even had a lion air flight from CGK to Kuala Lumpur and man i was sweating before even getting on that flight thinking i might die today
Sonda THY uçağı görünce bi mutlu oldum Kerem Gök ailesinden gelenlere sevgiler.
Bende ordan geldim as bi anlık gulumseme oldu
var ya uçak severlerin konuşması bir başka oluyor başka bir çocuk gelse as bayrakları falan derdir :)
Pistler neden tepe gibi duruyor bi bilginiz var mı yoksa kerem reise mi soralım 😂😂
Ayn kaderin ortaklarıyız 😊
What an ugly language. Is that Urdu?
Literally not a single bad or sketchy takeoff shown in this video. All completely normal.
I guess that happens in your world.
"In thrust we trust"
Every Pilot in this video
Video should be titled "how to use the right lens and angle to make things look much closer than they really are."
For those of you wondering this is runway 15/33 at Birmingham (BHX) airport in the UK and it's just over 3000 meters, 10,000ft long so not a short runway at all. It looks short and not very flat due to the zoom on the camera compressing the image but trust me I've stood at the end of this runway before many times and it doesn't look anywhere near as short or as hilly as it does in this clip.
Thanks man! Saved my visit to google😂
This really helps
What about as bumby as the image
Long lens compresses distance making it look worse than it is.
This video has been filmed using a long focal length lens, so the perspective has been compressed thus making it appear far more dramatic than it actually is. All these take offs are perfectly normal.
Because taking off with 100ft of runway remaining is normal for am airliner....
I get what you’re saying, but @1:51 you can see the piano keys reflecting off the bottom of the plane about 2 seconds after it gets airborne. That’s not got anything to do with camera optics.
Nobody:
Ilyushin IL-86 Pilots: *I have the whole runway, so I use the whole runway.*
That is why I love an aviation so much!!
That camera lens is so long it’s at the plane’s destination.
-Hubbell.. deep field ;}
We paid for whole runway, we use whole runway
When I saw the word "dramatic" I thought "clickbait", but so glad I stayed with it thank you.
Long lens illusion.
it's a zoom effect
@@arisnovisantoso4785 that's what I said - in different words.:)
So just a question, how does this illusion/effect move the marks on the runway? Just curious because most of those rotations were around 1000’-500’ remaining according to the standardized marks on the runway. One of the takeoffs even happened right when the wheels were about to touch the numbers in the opposite direction.
Clay Taylor - as another poster said, it is not uncommon for the full length to be used - the takeoff run needed is calculated before every flight. However, to answer your remark about the runway markings, my first response stands. The videographer is using a very narrow lens angle which has the (well-known) effect of distorting perspective. The 'piano keys' are not even visible in the video. So, to describe the take-offs as 'dramatic' is a just a bit of sensationalist rhetoric.
@@ChrisRWare I know about the full length takeoffs because I am a pilot, and I was mainly curious because to me I didn’t understand how the lens would distort the video to give the “illusion” of anything. The first one was the only one that was interesting because it bounced a bit, and that’s not just wholly uncommon but it is fun to watch. Mainly just curious as to the effect you guys are discussing due to the position of the markings such as the “thousand footers” and such.
Extreme telephoto lenses will give a distorted perspective. Clickbait !
Them planes have a fear of heights, me thinks.
Gavin Ridge-Cooke no
The first takeoff is the only one that looked a bit sketchy to me. That run was very close to 40 seconds long. Then when it did lift off it looked, hesitant to actually leave the ground.
Usually, not always, but usually, a 737 is off the ground in about 30 seconds. That extra 10 seconds equates to about 1,750 additional feet of runway used. I know the lens used in the making of this video distorts distance. It doesn't distort time though.
The first one was in wet conditions. As per law the airplane needs a screenheight of 15ft on the end of the Takeoff-Distance Required. So everything was normal
Camera trickery.
The plane had plenty of room.
I swear that last one bounced the rear wheels off the berm at the end of the runway.
I was talking to a 737 pilot during one of my cockpit visits and I asked him about the takeoff procedures. He said they do their best to use the minimum amount of thrust needed to get airborne. FLEX temps also come into play in this situation . Also, if the runway is 12,000 or so ft. long, why would you wanna rush to get off the ground? take advantage of that whole runway so you have more time to notice any issues during ground roll and if so you’d have more cushion room to abort before V1.
True, and i agree, but i wouldn't want to push it too far though
If you notice if the take off was late, but the rate of ascending was very steep in most of the cases ,so the power/thrust was not an issue 👍
Clickbait - these are good videos but there is no need to sensationalise normal airline operations.
All pilots rotated reasonably well with almost perfect angle of attack depending on the situation so they seemed very well trained thus i rule out pilot-error specially since those are multiple incidents and they cannot be all late-rotations so I wouldn’t consider wrong flaps-power settings, those were probably due to crammed passengers to almost maximum payload combined with a short runway which isn’t a problem at all because airlines fly with these scenarios any many other factors everyday no problem but maybe it was an unforeseen excessive tail-wind which significantly reduced air-speed thus reduced generated lift that added all the risk.
I love these clickbait, dramatically titled videos. Does anyone seriously think pilots (in the vast majority of cases) break aviation, or airline regulations and their own (not to mention passengers) safety at risk! It’s all a trick of the long telephoto lenses and camera angle.
Couldn't agree more!! I used to fly a lot on Dash-7's with their famously short rotations, and through the lens above even they would look like the whole runway was being used!!
Hasn't anyone consider the fact that reason behind the "labored" takeoffs is due to the heavy gross weight of the plane and the CG? Like what one cognizant viewer said in the comments, a pilot wouldn't break 14 CFR code regulations, departure procedures, to just "dramatize" a takeoff. Again, the reason for these long takeoffs is simply due to the heavy gross weight/takeoff weight. 0:48-0:50 is the best evidence to support that reasoning, as you can see the main landing gear momentairly go in the air and come right back down- thus showing that heavy gross weight is the culprit for these "labored" and "dramatic" takeoffs.
all elements of doom and gloom aside, its like a wreck. one cant look away. and at the same time one thinks what a marvel of engineering
Everyone of those takeoffs,, if engine loss at rotation.. Everyone is dead
@@j.o.1516 ‘Evening. Gross weight determines V1,VR,V2. V2+10/20kts is added for engine out performance. In this case, the aircraft had a high V1,VR,V2 speed due to gross weight, or to put it clearly, a heavy gross weight. Runway length and stop margin was sufficient, just the aircraft had a high gross weight is all.
10 000 foot (3000m) runway isnt definitely short
My city airport's runway is 2500m and 737 take offs easily full loaded
What's the big deal? The camera close to the approach lights give a different perspective, but these are ordinary take offs that could've had V1 cuts without any prejudice
What airport is this?
FYI, there were no issues with any of the take-offs shown in the video. The angle of the camera and the lens used only makes it look like these takeoffs were very last second, but that was not the case at all.
@ETOPS Since you fly the 777, you've seen airport runways all over the world. What percentage would you guesstimate are not level? Are there regions of the world where this is more frequent?
I'm really curious, I've only flown small private planes to mostly the same airports over and over and don't recall seeing too many bad runways. I remember one or two that were quite obvious.
This is bhx I believe
@ETOPS Many of these take-off and landing videos taken all ove the world show "hilly" runways. There is one somewhere in Germany (I don't remember where) where this looks quite dramatic, although, judging by the portion of the aircraft obscured, the "hills" must be a meter tall max.
EGBB
"I paid for the full runway, I will use the full runway"
They buttered on takeoof
wow... thank you! your work is to be well-paid for!
Dramatic late? Watch Tivat take offs in mid 2000s then
5012810 Tivat is crazy 😆👌
Click bait. Title should read mediocre takeoffs pronunced by camera angle and zoom.
The last one was too close😱
I think the positioning of the camera 📸 is what makes em look like late take offs. Great close ups tho
Exactly, or from the side...
Great angle
I thought, takeoff in the touchdown zone is rather late. Than I saw the runway extention with the arrows on it 💀
Which airport?
The runway is short that is why the planes are making use of almost all of it.
Except the runway isn’t short .........it’s over 10000 ft long .......it’s the camera settings making it look short . Go on Wikipedia and read up on Birmingham Airport and see for yourself !
@@stupididiot369 it's called improved climb, read about it ;) it's all safe
Optical illusion due to dips in the runway, much of it is hidden, you cant see the final 2,500 feet of runway 33 at Birmingham. If they used the full
runway you would see the piano keys but you don`t see them as they all had 3,000+ feet left. Had they used the full runway, they would be over his
head in about 1 second. From wheels off the ground to almost over his head it takes about 8 seconds, at 160 knots, that`s 270 feet per second,
8 x 270 = 2,160 feet, even the 787 used no more than about 65% of the runway. If this was real, the airport would not be operational.
Andrew Flyer that’s interesting thx!
@@cocobeanie4704 .... I`m not knocking flugsnut, its a really well produced film.
He has done some phenomenal extreme weather videos from Birmingham.
Many have been used by the National media in the UK ... and beyond :)
Displaced threshold in the opposite direction. That being said...
0:35 barely off the ground over the aim point (1,000ft from the runway threshold).
1:29 nearly same spot.
1:50 rotates at the aim point and lifts off about 500ft from the numbers.
Neat video.
I was thinking this must be the case. I couldn't imagine the factor of safety for derated takeoffs being that bad - a total loss of thrust on one engine after V1 would not be a survivable scenario for the Jet2 737s otherwise.
Andrew Flyer
1:52 you do see the “piano keys”, and the airplane isn’t very high as it crosses them.
Heres s choice spot for similar takeoff chills and thrills: major mountain city airports, like Denver, Reno, Albuquerque, etc., in mid summer on a hot weekend warrior day! 😮
Looking at the BHX airport charts , I estimate that apart from the 3rd departure , all others had over 1000M of runways left at the point of rotation , and the 3rd one had about 700M left , certainly not dramatic or late , but also a good video not the less . The lens compression and undulations make for a slightly distorted view of reality .
I'm Out yes .
Some hard working engines going on there. Good video, I enjoyed it. 👍
Good old BHX...the only airport for cross wind landings and numpties commenting on the state of the runway.
dummy question for the experts: is it that difficult to make a flat runway?
Yeah it can get up to a few miles long so it looks wobbly but its pretty damn flat
Yeah I often see these runways in the videos and wonder why there's hills all up and down it.
It seems like they'd want to flat. Is there a reason why there's hills in it on purpose?
Yes is very difficult like a flat earth
@@wizzalien7796 they’d have to do a lot of costly and time consuming ground works to make it pool table flat, when in reality runways are generally very flat with at most a few meters of gradual elevation change and they don’t need to be completely flat either.
It is flat, but it’s thousands of meters long so, looks like a damn hill but it flat enough
So many idiots in this comment section talking about how uneven the runway is,no runway is completely flat and also the angle makes the runway look like a microwaved piece of bacon, the runway is about 1 mile long so the change in elevation is not as exaggerated as the angle makes it seem
My picture is ISORROWPRODUCTIONS it’s not over 2 miles long haha that would be more then 20 thousand feet . Not this one at least
Karl Sandin one mile is 5280 feet just saying. Math...
Sorry I don’t use imperial so I’m not familiar with it,everyone in the comment section were using imperial
Karl Sandin 2 miles = 10560 ft
We use the ‘assumed temperature’ method to reduce take off power. This reduces noise and vibration, saves fuel and reduces engine wear.
It’s a simple chart for each runway on our network.
The chart compares aircraft weight to ambient temperature, to headwind component.
This way we use most of the available runway.
You do the exact same, in your car.
If you want to exit the highway at a junction, in 2km and you’re doing 100km/hr, you don’t wait until the last second and then go for max braking, you use the distance available.
Much more comfortable, saves your brakes and tires, etc.
same principle. 👍
Did you say “charts.” What is this 1993? Lol
@@seanwilson5820 Well spotted.
My company still uses manual charts.
Aviation can be quite surprising, in this regard.
It tends to be a mix-up of some of the newest, and oldest technology available.
There’s a saying that there is an air-disaster behind every single rule and implementation, in aviation, and it’s kinda true.
If a system, or process, or rule hasn’t been blamed for a disaster, then it won’t be changed, ever!
For example, we still use Morse-code, to identify the radio stations, that we tune.
We still approach some runways using WW2-era radio beacons, that may have an inaccuracy of many hundreds of meters. (Whilst using these types of approach, we are required to not use our super-accurate GPS).
Aviation weather forecasts and notices are presented as highly abbreviated “hieroglyphics” of numbers and letters, because, during WW2, relaying this data was very slow, and expensive.
These days, we use the Internet to get this data and it could easily be presented in plain English, but nope, we still use the hieroglyphics!
(Google ‘TAF example’ to see how aviation weather is still presented, 100 years after its invention)
@@normannutbar424well, my airline (the largest in the world) uses an iPad for everything. Flight plans, real time weather, landing distance, takeoff distance, etc. I was just saying that charts are almost unheard of in the US, by any airline anymore. I thought the same was true in Eurpoe. Just a small joke. That was all..
@@seanwilson5820 You obviously know what a TAF is. I shouldn’t have assumed. My bad.
We still have to do OEI NDB approaches, circle-to-land, in the sim, every 6 months too. Pretty old school.
Do you guys even still have NDBs?
@@normannutbar424 holy hell!!! WTF?!? That is modern day torture! No modern airliner will.ever do a single engine NDB hold. That's just silly.
At no time were the pilots worried. The computer on these things are designed to calculate runway length with take off speed. And saving as much fuel as possible. Being this is when planes burn the he most fuel.
On this day, the pilots were wearing their brown trousers.
Taking off on a fully loaded and fuelled Airbus A340 always felt like it was never going to leave the ground, the take-off seemed to go on for ever.
Looks like a little short, roller-coaster runway.
All of these machines are guaranteed to deliver a minimum of 2.4% climb gradient, on one engine, if one of the donkeys were to die, during take off.
The taps are not fully open, for these takeoffs.
It would help if that runway wasn't like a piece of microwave bacon.
Fox Blue River 😂😂😂😂
Fox Blue River ur an idiot dude. Do you not realize the concept of distortion? The runway looks wavy because of the angle in which it’s recorded but in reality there is barely any change
thats not a runway its a roller coaster
When i had about 25 total hours with 13 solo, the crazy CFI's at my school decided to challenge themselves and brough a few of us students to a short 1,800 feet runway on the schools C150's to teach us Short Field Techniques". 50 feet trees on each end. I was one the test subjects or Lab Rats to the test.
The problem was the 90 degree temp of that July in midwest USA. Landings were easy due the huge flaps of C150. But the take offs, I could see the leaves of the trees at end very easily as i pass maybe 10 feet above them at the Vx. Nevermore...
Also, for long runways, short haul planes do this since they have low flap settings and low takeoff power to avoid engine wear and full consumption and a higher climb rate.
Coronavirus is fucking the aviation too 😥😥😢
Did that 787 rise from the ground at the touchdown zone of the other end of the runway? :o
How fast can the wheels roll before damage?
They say 225/235mph rated on the sidewall .
I've never seen a runway with such severe undulations...
It's called compression of a telephoto lens, it looks like this runway is only 2500ft when in fact it is 10,000ft long, I've been a photographer for 50 years.
It's all about the telephoto lens
And what exactly will be a procedure in case of RTO?
v1 is calculated in such way, that they will stop before end of asda
0:12 man that pilot was slamming through those gears!
All video footage is very deceiving, there's plenty of runway left!
Does this runway double as a skate park?
Is this runway awfully short or the planes r overloaded? 🤔
Well it could be a bit of both; however you can take an a380 off from there!
Neither, it's just the exaggerated effect of telephoto lenses. It's Birmingham, UK (BHX)
I sh*t myself when a plane uses all the runway I’m like rotate rotate!!!!!!! 😂
Why is that runway so hilly?
Because you touch yourself too much
Most runways look like this....keep in mind that due to the perspective you can easier notice height than lenghts..means you can easily see that there is a slope of maybe 30-60ft height but that it stretches over maybe 6000ft (so a grade of less than 1%) you dont really notice and for the Planes a slope with an angle of less than 1% is neglectable
m starckjohann it’s 10000 ft runway
@@drnogueiras8783 yeah you are right but there are several slopes so one doesnt stretch across the entire length of the runway..the 6000 feet rather served as example ;)
Video should be renamed “planes take off”
Make runways flat again
What a idiot, most runways are like this just more or less curve
That runway look wavy 🙂
The railway's right behind the runway-
For Pete's sakes, take the train!
The point of view of the room confuses the reality is it seems that it takes off or at the last..... But that's not the case!
aha
Someone lied about their weight!
Awesome footage!
Bloody great stuff mate.
Ok maybe I'm seeing things but does the runway surface has dips like s roller coaster?
Runways are very very long (like 3km) so there is actually a lot of up and down. This is made way more pronounced by the camera's focal length as it compresses this and thus you can see the dips
@@argentum530 No... this runway is 10,000 feet which is pretty much exactly 3km like I said, and no runway is 100% flat.
Most international airport runways have some sort of slope or curvature to them.
Isn't the decision speed for takeoff or abort just a few knots slower than rotation speed? If so, how would these planes ever stop before running out of runway, if the pilot decides to abort at decision speed?
In the flight computer the weight of the plane, weather and runway length are calculated. This gives what’s called V speeds. Before V1 pilots can reject the takeoff and stop safely. After V1 they are committed to flying. V2 is the single engine out climb speed. Does that make sense?
Not always. Rejecting before V1 is guaranteed to stop on the runway. Therefore these runways probably have a lower V1 speed.
Oh man, that was definately a civic revveing in the background
I haven't cursed that much in a long time
Minor skipping of the mains at liftoff isn't uncommon especially during windy conditions. It doesn't mean the plane "doesn't want to fly". Next- discuss the telephoto lens effect.
Nothing special here. Just a result of reduced thrust (derate/assumed temp) take-offs. 50ft (35ft when wet) clearance at the departure end of the runway is the minimal clearance required.
This runway was used by the Spruce Goose for it's fighter escort duties and later its aerobatic displays. Piloted by Bob Hoover it later took off with a 100,000lb cargo load and did a vertical climb and Cuban 8 before completing a few 9g turns. Amazing stick and rudder skills that day shown by Bob ....
The "Spruce Goose" was an enormous seaplane built by Howard Hughes in the 1940's and flown exactly once for less than 3 minutes, with Hughes piloting, at Long Beach Harbor in California. The year was 1947. Is there another plane nicknamed the "Spruce Goose?"
@@mikeletaurus4728 Lol. No, it's a joke!
@@SearchBucket2 Got it! People thought the Spruce Goose was a joke, too, at the time, hence its nickname, which Hughes despised. It was also called "The Flying Lumberyard." Its real name was the H-4.
Loved the camera view. Keep it up
Who builds a runway with whoop-de-dos?
Everyone. It's not necessary to move hundreds of tons of dirt, because the level change ist minimal at those long distances.
Keep in mind, that runway is almost 2 miles long. It’s not as bad as the angle makes it all look
there are no problems... It is a normal Take off flex.
I saw a fully loaded Qantas 747-400 going to LAX at Melbourne on a hot day . Went over me about 400 metres from the end of the runway, 200 feet maybe a little higher after using all the runway. I knew he was not as low as I probably though but it did look a little low.
Are the orange lights dangerous sticking up in the air at the end of the runway?
No, they are part of the Instrument Landing System and enhance safety.
Actually. Those orange light poles are small and far away from the end of the runway. Its safe m8 don't worry.
It’s part of the illusion of this whole video. It’s less about how much runway was used and more camera placement
Those are part of the localiser apparatus , they send 2 signal lobes of different frequency modulation to aircraft landing in the opposite direction. Usually placed about 300 meters from the threshold.
Only if you knock them down. Then you get hollerd at.
Misleading title. Use of telephoto lens compresses distance. Everyone of these planes took off with at least 1500/500+m with the exception of one (second) who departed with 1200ft/400+m left. If you know runway markings you can figure out the distance. There is a 1000ft marker (2two big white stripes) then markers every 500ft. The one at the top of the rise is 2500ft from the displaced threshold.
I was thinking the same - but was basing it on how up and down the runway appeared, so typical of a telephoto lens - but nice to have the runway markings confirm it definitively.