Just got back from four days of BAT training. The impression I get from talking with the training guys (3 different instructors) is that all changes are being evaluated from a "cost" perspective. so, the changes to flaps 25 seems to be cost over everything. That being said, if they put it in the flight manual" that doesn't really mean it's smart, smarter, or the best practice. I have seen other airlines flight manuals that had incorrect MEL procedures that were contrary to the master MEL. So, it's OK to question the manual....understand why?? understand the rationale, etc.

In this case, the reason for the flaps 25 is to save about 70 pounds of fuel on an approach. That is what the initial cost estimate appears to be from what I can gather. It appears the actual cost benefit is aobut 38-50 pounds of fuel per approach.

Looking at the fuel flow from using my go-pro camera in the simulator, I noticed a net decrease in 49 pounds of fuel. I video'd 3 flaps 30 landings and 3 flaps 25 landings and had my camera aimed at the fuel flow gauges.

The fuel usage was very minimal. I did also notice an average landing roll out of 400 feet increase. That may be due to my inefficiency in my flare and roll out though.

The company is really full of crap on this flaps 25 "procedure"

also, what is the norm of other airlines flying the B757 and B767 around the world? I'd love to see an overlay of everyone's procedures and flight manuals so I can compare rationale.

Just because TK says it's the way it is, doesn't mean they are right. It's good to challenge assumptions in the name of safety and if our motivaitons for doing so are in the right place.

Each check airman/instructor I met had no sales job to offer me on the flaps 25 thing. they gave their speil and said they also don't understand why??? The only time I made a flaps 25 landing on my checkride was during gusty/potential windshear conditions and the check airman loved that. had nothing to say about my other flaps 30 landings at all.