Narrative:

We were advised that the last 3000' of runway lights were inoperative on 24R, an over 10,000' runway required for takeoff. Clearly visible precision instrument runway markings, WX, visibility, ambient light, distant lights, and aircraft landing lights powered by 3 different sources and 4 different busses gave directional guidance cues for an abort or directional problem during takeoff, should one occur. I requested clearance for takeoff but the tower declined to issue a takeoff clearance despite issuing landing clrncs for landing on 6L at pilot's discretion. Tower agreed to issue our IFR release and verify there was no IFR traffic in the area. Takeoff was then made without explicit takeoff clearance phraseology after receiving clearance on the runway and IFR release per telephone agreement. Supplemental information from acn 127196: we consulted the second officer who informed us that we were too heavy for runway 24L. The captain left the flight deck to go to company operations to call the tower via landline. When he returned he said tower would give us an IFR release and allow us to takeoff on runway 24R. That was the first I, the first officer, realized it was the last 3000' of lights on the departure end of 24R as the same runway had a light failure on the first part of 24R 2 nights previous. Tower issued a 'takeoff at pilot's discretion' clearance after clearing us into position and hold on 24R. An uneventful takeoff was made with liftoff occurring on the lighted section of the runway.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR WDB DEPARTS RWY AT NIGHT WITH LAST 3000' OF ALL RWY LIGHTING INOPERATIVE. NOT NOTAMED AS IT WAS A RECENT FAILURE OF ARPT LIGHTING. ARPT HAD EXPERIENCED A LIGHT FAILURE ON THE SAME RWY, OPPOSITE END, 2 NIGHTS PREVIOUSLY.

Narrative: WE WERE ADVISED THAT THE LAST 3000' OF RWY LIGHTS WERE INOPERATIVE ON 24R, AN OVER 10,000' RWY REQUIRED FOR TKOF. CLEARLY VISIBLE PRECISION INSTRUMENT RWY MARKINGS, WX, VISIBILITY, AMBIENT LIGHT, DISTANT LIGHTS, AND ACFT LNDG LIGHTS POWERED BY 3 DIFFERENT SOURCES AND 4 DIFFERENT BUSSES GAVE DIRECTIONAL GUIDANCE CUES FOR AN ABORT OR DIRECTIONAL PROBLEM DURING TKOF, SHOULD ONE OCCUR. I REQUESTED CLRNC FOR TKOF BUT THE TWR DECLINED TO ISSUE A TKOF CLRNC DESPITE ISSUING LNDG CLRNCS FOR LNDG ON 6L AT PLT'S DISCRETION. TWR AGREED TO ISSUE OUR IFR RELEASE AND VERIFY THERE WAS NO IFR TFC IN THE AREA. TKOF WAS THEN MADE WITHOUT EXPLICIT TKOF CLRNC PHRASEOLOGY AFTER RECEIVING CLRNC ON THE RWY AND IFR RELEASE PER TELEPHONE AGREEMENT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 127196: WE CONSULTED THE S/O WHO INFORMED US THAT WE WERE TOO HEAVY FOR RWY 24L. THE CAPT LEFT THE FLT DECK TO GO TO COMPANY OPS TO CALL THE TWR VIA LANDLINE. WHEN HE RETURNED HE SAID TWR WOULD GIVE US AN IFR RELEASE AND ALLOW US TO TKOF ON RWY 24R. THAT WAS THE FIRST I, THE F/O, REALIZED IT WAS THE LAST 3000' OF LIGHTS ON THE DEP END OF 24R AS THE SAME RWY HAD A LIGHT FAILURE ON THE FIRST PART OF 24R 2 NIGHTS PREVIOUS. TWR ISSUED A 'TKOF AT PLT'S DISCRETION' CLRNC AFTER CLEARING US INTO POSITION AND HOLD ON 24R. AN UNEVENTFUL TKOF WAS MADE WITH LIFTOFF OCCURRING ON THE LIGHTED SECTION OF THE RWY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.