Why is there a trend for posts to seek a legal answer?
Technically, a question might be ‘how-to’; or when considering operational aspects, ‘should-we’ (self) be doing this.
Thus, with an appropriate question – thinking before you ask, an answer or a new line of thought might emerge.
Should we be doing this? Not in a commercial operation, because an analysis contributes to the required level of safety.
How to do it – take off without analysis? Assuming that there is no alternative;- very cautiously, identify and minimise the risks. Consult all available information – runway length, met, etc; use the AFM data to check runway and WAT performance. Look out of the window and assess the local terrain. Use full power, optimum configuration.
Consider influencing factors – why would you want to use reduced thrust.
If this is a hypothetical question, perhaps spend more time to consider the scenario; context biases thoughts.
Is the use of reduced thrust unwarranted management pressure – the need to reduce cost? There has to be a balance between safety and economics, and whilst the sharp end operation is best placed to make a final judgement it doesn’t mean that all responsibility for this is placed on the pilot. Know when to say No - politely report the problem to management – give them a solution with the problem – because you have thought about the safety issue from your perspective, in context.
Nothing personal, but are pilots hiding their responsibilities behind a legal cover? Is there a reluctance to think - failing to consider what the situation is, really understand it, always use an SOP?
If you ask the right question then the answer is obvious; so what is the ‘right’ question?
Are regulations more closely aligned to a legal framework (operators need a lawyer to interpret them).
Legalities and operating rules don’t prevent accidents; that responsibility is with the pilot.
Thus the question might be how – in difficult, complex, or ambiguous situations, how might that responsibility be exercised?