Sacrificing certain pavement for uncertain instructions seems odd to me.
It also comes down to being consistent as well as sensible.
Real world example:
I did a checkout once that the 11,000ft runway meant going to the very end of the end for takeoff and landing on the approach end numbers. (Just for the record it was a 40deg flaps 180HP STOL CE172 that can lift off about the time it starts rolling then land on a quarter and give you $3 in change)
All good and well for the takeoff because you have 2 miles of pavement out front to land on if the engine quits or whatever.
The landing though: What about an engine out on the 2 mile final ATC put you on which would put you down into the field short of the runway? Landing long would have been a mile further along and likely put you on the runway when the glide slope became steeper...but landing long would have been defined as unreasonably risky behavior.
Now the 11,000ft rwy was ok for takeoff and whatever for landings from the end - THEN we went over and did touch and go's on a 4500ft runway. A midfield takeoff from the 11,000ft runway with about 5500ft of pavement ahead would have been excessively risky even though the takeoff part of the run would have been longer than the touch and go runway's maximum length.
IOW 5,500 is completely unacceptable yet 2,500ft is totally acceptable. That doesn't sound right to me, Does that sound right to you? And if it does, can you explain rationally to dummy me why 2500 is more than long enough and 5500 is too short if, say, the engine quits at 150 AGL?
Unless everyone uses the big flat multi square miles open lakebeds as runways all the time, you're always risking not being on the pavement under some kind of conditions..and I'd bet there are pilots who would run off those and crash their brains out as well.
Any way it goes, just fly your own flight. Do what you feel most comfortable with. Don't worry or get irritated about what others do. Just don't crash yourself in the process.
