Narrative:

Takeoff on runway 13 at lga appeared to be marginal. Company dispatch is located at departure end of runway 13 in company ramp tower. After our departure they contacted us with their concern. They had observed the takeoff and said it appeared we had marginally cleared the dike at the departure end. Discussion: due to a severe 'neastern' snow storm in the northeast united states, our fuel load was very heavy, i.e., absence of nearby suitable destination alternates, and additional holding fuel. All passenger seats were filled. Gross weight was near maximum for departure runway in these WX conditions. Engine anti-ice was on for takeoff, further limiting performance, but still within limits. #2 engine on -200 series large transport is subject to compressor stalls when takeoff power is applied with stiff xwinds. It is accepted technique to apply that power on engines #1 and #3 and then 'bring in' #2 engine once forward ground speed starts some ram air through the engine. No performance computation is accounted for when using this technique, however. Since we had nearly a direct crosswind at 12 KTS, we used this technique. I feel the first officer, who was making the takeoff, waited an excessive time before applying full takeoff power. This certainly added to our takeoff roll. Judging from runway centerline lights, we lifted off with 3000 ft runway remaining. The dike at the end of runway 13 is approximately 6 ft high. At 35 ft above the runway end (the far requirement), I'm sure dike clearance looks very close. I am confident we had well in excess of the required clearance, but when observers are used to seeing aircraft cross the departure end at several hundred ft, it obviously appeared 'close.' in fact, although 'legal,' additional clearance would have been much more comfortable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ON CLB OUT LGT CREW NOTIFIED THAT DISPATCH CONCERNED REF LONG TKOF ROLL AND PROX TO DIKE AT END OF RWY.

Narrative: TKOF ON RWY 13 AT LGA APPEARED TO BE MARGINAL. COMPANY DISPATCH IS LOCATED AT DEP END OF RWY 13 IN COMPANY RAMP TWR. AFTER OUR DEP THEY CONTACTED US WITH THEIR CONCERN. THEY HAD OBSERVED THE TKOF AND SAID IT APPEARED WE HAD MARGINALLY CLRED THE DIKE AT THE DEP END. DISCUSSION: DUE TO A SEVERE 'NEASTERN' SNOW STORM IN THE NE UNITED STATES, OUR FUEL LOAD WAS VERY HVY, I.E., ABSENCE OF NEARBY SUITABLE DEST ALTERNATES, AND ADDITIONAL HOLDING FUEL. ALL PAX SEATS WERE FILLED. GROSS WT WAS NEAR MAX FOR DEP RWY IN THESE WX CONDITIONS. ENG ANTI-ICE WAS ON FOR TKOF, FURTHER LIMITING PERFORMANCE, BUT STILL WITHIN LIMITS. #2 ENG ON -200 SERIES LGT IS SUBJECT TO COMPRESSOR STALLS WHEN TKOF PWR IS APPLIED WITH STIFF XWINDS. IT IS ACCEPTED TECHNIQUE TO APPLY THAT PWR ON ENGS #1 AND #3 AND THEN 'BRING IN' #2 ENG ONCE FORWARD GND SPD STARTS SOME RAM AIR THROUGH THE ENG. NO PERFORMANCE COMPUTATION IS ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN USING THIS TECHNIQUE, HOWEVER. SINCE WE HAD NEARLY A DIRECT XWIND AT 12 KTS, WE USED THIS TECHNIQUE. I FEEL THE FO, WHO WAS MAKING THE TKOF, WAITED AN EXCESSIVE TIME BEFORE APPLYING FULL TKOF PWR. THIS CERTAINLY ADDED TO OUR TKOF ROLL. JUDGING FROM RWY CTRLINE LIGHTS, WE LIFTED OFF WITH 3000 FT RWY REMAINING. THE DIKE AT THE END OF RWY 13 IS APPROX 6 FT HIGH. AT 35 FT ABOVE THE RWY END (THE FAR REQUIREMENT), I'M SURE DIKE CLRNC LOOKS VERY CLOSE. I AM CONFIDENT WE HAD WELL IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIRED CLRNC, BUT WHEN OBSERVERS ARE USED TO SEEING ACFT CROSS THE DEP END AT SEVERAL HUNDRED FT, IT OBVIOUSLY APPEARED 'CLOSE.' IN FACT, ALTHOUGH 'LEGAL,' ADDITIONAL CLRNC WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.