Smilin_Ed "
Intersection Takeoffs
Several things do you no good:
The runway behind you. "
That's all well and good Ed when you are operating for yourself.
In airlines that I am familiar with, once you hit V1 you go! ie You take off regardless of how much runway is left.
If you acted the hero, and aborted after V1 because you new you had lots of runway left, and if you damaged the aircraft or if anyone was injured, the airline would have your balls and probably your job!
Many operators prefer intersection departures because it saves heaps of time and money.
Reduced power take-offs are preferred as they save money as well, and as far as the pen pushers are concerned, providing the minimum amount of overrun is available, that is all that is needed. Why spend more money on the take-off roll than you need to?
As pilots, we are between a rock and a hard place. Pilots want maximum performance to use minimum runway to get off the ground earlier to minimise any potential threat, to improve the safety of all. On the other hand, airlines want us to use minimum power, to use the maximum amount of runway, to have the minimum theoretical safety margin, to save money.
Of course the decision to use max power is always up to the PIC, however any pilot who chooses to go against the company SOP (as shown up in the quick access flight data recorder) can expect a "please explain" from the relevant manager and possible job loss.
Unfortunately the decision to use reduced power or not (or an intersection departure (that was not the case here)) is not as simple as it should be. The decision not to abort after V1 can also be questioned.
Upon reaching V1, the pilots of EK407 would have been expecting everything to continue as normal. At VR (I assume they got to that too) they would have pulled back and expected to lift off as it has always done. When lift-off did not occur, the PIC and EFFO would have faced a very unusual situation as to "what to do now"? Correctly, and this should be applauded, they decided to continue and apply TOGA thrust (apparently, from other posts) and avoided a disaster that could have cost many lives and the future of EK as an airline.
Sure, these pilots may have made a mistake with their data input, but their company SOP's should have prevented this error. There were 4 pilots on deck at the time so if there was any gross error someone should have seen it.
Unless this is a case of gross negligence, which I doubt, and if it is found that the EK SOP's were part of the cause, I hope the pilots are re-instated and are shown as true hero's for carrying out a successful recovery and preventing injury to all passengers and crew, after a "faulty" take-off.
