Some views cite the need for airmanship and the judgment within that when considering an intersection departure. This will involve assessing risk in the options.
Nothing is risk free; a takeoff on a dry runway using the minimum required distance is of ‘low’ risk and thus is acceptable (to the industry via regulation) for normal operations. A similar takeoff on a wet runway has more risk – reduced height over the end with an engine failure, or greater probability of an overrun during an RTO, but this increased risk is also accepted by industry (regulation), perhaps partly balanced by the likely lower exposure to a combination of critical conditions (wet and engine failure).
There may be additional risk due to the poor condition of the runway – how much rubber/paint is there on the stop end, is the runway grooved, what’s the width, what’s the overrun like.
This is where airmanship can provide a balancing view of the overall risk, but this depends on the way in which humans think about risk. There is also risk in other human activity - errors, your own or from other sources.
Unfortunately, many pilots don’t think about these aspects; not because they can’t, but due to a lack of knowledge about the risk adjusting factors or the size of the risk. This shortfall could be due to not seeing (perceiving) the factors, or even not looking for any.
In addition to basic knowledge, there is need for specialist knowledge; how to judge the risk in these factors; some may not apply on a wet runway, others involve risk at all times.
We are creatures of the present, more often failing to look ahead. We tend to rush, take short cuts, allow bias of what other people think/do effect our judgment, or we just forget – being unable to recall what might be important in a ‘routine’ situation.
IMHO those who believe in the fallibility of the human, and likelihood of personal error, would choose to have the additional the margin of a full length runway … but then again we tend to choose the option with most to gain – save time, save fuel.
I wonder if management would agree if they balance an intersection departure against the cost of an ‘avoidable’ serious incident. Instead of waiting for the hindsight which comes with an incident, use foresight to provide guidance or procedural ruling (company or personal SOP), e.g. no flex with wet intersection departure – balance the risk as well as balance the runway length.
For ATC’ers; what is the additional risk in intersection departures? Runway incursion more likely, differing points of focus for departing aircraft, additional calls (or chat) for ground movements. Everywhere there is change, there is opportunity for error.
And does any of this influence the pilot;- to rush, forget checks, or fail to look out?
IMHO, whether you are a PPL or a commercial pilot, the question is not about looking for the reasons for conducting intersection departures, it is about the justification for your decision – should you be making an intersection departure in these circumstances – even after considering the context of the current situation at some future point.