"Gord Beaman" wrote...

Thanks Bob, and that's quite clear, no need to scan it at all. I
just had never heard of it being done before. Seems like a
somewhat unsafe thing to be doing with a high value machine in a
highly critical phase of its flight.

Perhaps 'unsafe' isn't the correct word here, my point is that I
feel that it might be unproductive to operate the a/c closer to
it's maximum capabilities just to save some 'wear and tear' on
the engines? I'd think that you're not availing yourself of that
'extra performance' in case of an engine failure at a critical
time. I suspect that it'd take a hell of a long time to make up
what they lost in that one crash. (not even to mention the seven
crew-members)

Well, this is just an example of the reality that belies the "safety is
paramount" theory... Reduced T/O thrust and non-optimum noise abatement climb
profiles have been made "standard" to put economics and politics ahead of actual
safety considerations...

There are actually some limited cases (e.g., contaminated runways, to reduce
Vmc) where reduced thrust takeoffs are "safer" than full-thrust takeoffs, but
they are the exception to the rule.