There is a reason you need to practice it though.
Here we go all over again. Make sure the ambulance and Firies are on standby as for sure one day the practice will go wrong.
Departure from the E2 taxiway intersection on runway 29 provides in excess of 1,600 m of runway for take-off. This is ample for a C208B and more than is available at any other runway the C208B is operated to by the company. Departing from the end of runway 29 requires a significantly further taxi distance.
The quote is from the accident report. Despite the point made in the ATSB report that the start of the take off gave ample runway for take-off, and therefore perfectly legal, it conveniently ignored that the fact if the pilot had chosen to start the take off from the threshold of Runway 29 it is probable that the pilot could have simply landed ahead on the remaining runway length with ample spare runway length without having to risk life and limb by resorting to a very risky piece of manoeuvring at low speed and with a contaminated windscreen.
The old adage comes to mind that runway behind you is useless when taking off. That has been the case since flying first began. Intersection take offs are fine for twins providing performance parameters allow this. But for just a few more minutes of the pilot's time, (yes I know - its all about money nowadays) it is good airmanship to go that extra yard and use the full available length -just in case one day your one and only engine will choose to fail at the worst time - which is did in this case.
The instructor developed the C208B operating procedures for the operator.
Presumably the instructor was a qualified test pilot who had the resources and CASA approvals to conduct measured flight tests before developing the procedures on behalf of the operator? Frankly it smacks of an amateur approach to a very serious manoeuvre. Risk mitigation, someone?