Bedder,
I still think the controller vs pilot thing is a bit of a storm in a teacup, however thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. I appreciate where you're coming from and the flow and training problems. As well, I agree that a light weight twin engined aircraft probably doesn't need to factor in 200ft on a long runway; after all, twins generally only use the first half of the runway with both motors turning.
Notwithstanding, In a 2 or 4 eng aircraft, I would still request "full length" on any runway if the reasons for it not being offered weren't readily apparent.
I have nearly a 100% record of getting airborne after setting takeoff thrust.
The limited occasions when I have remained on terra firma I have been most appreciative of the groomed real estate out front! I am convinced that I would be even more happy with having the max available runway remaining should I have to continue the takeoff - even dare I say at a speed above Vr with reduced thrust/controlability. [herein lies a discussion for another day]. It is about managing real and apparent risk, with the benefit of experience.
Don't think,
Yeah I hear what you are saying as well. However, I think the very real Macro and Micro commercial and [dare I say it -] CRM pressures should be tempered with a mature and cognicent responsibilty for a safe and efficient operation. A part of this is maximising take off run available. Balanced field/ WIP/intersection departure/TORA [6000ft to 14000ft], these slew the risk but make no difference to my general philosophy.
Cleared IGS,
Good post. The problem with C&T is the same as yours with days "off". Regional flights tend to be C&T to maximise the sectors - especially the long haul fleet[s].
Answer is - don't hold your breath. I suppose we can keep trying though
