HostileCombover

Point taken. Thanks.

CX500T

Casper actually has pretty good food. My office used to be in the brick hangar across from the terminal.

saturn

It's funny how the mentallity is 180° vs the other thing we check that also takes 15 seconds before taxi.

Let's say while pushing the WDR arrives. Very common. Uh-uh, no looking until the wave off! Do you: A- review it with the parking brake set? B - get rolling then do it on the taxi? I know which one saves latency, fuel, delays for inbound etc. I also know which one is more distracting.

I'm not on the 737, so I'm unfamiliar with your WDR song and dance. On my fleet, it's a silent verification, usually one guy checks at a time. All fleets enforce keeping your head outside until the salute (thanks to SJC). Any LCP worth their salt would tell you to review the WDR before taxi. If you said, "it's safe to review on taxi, I'll exchange controls, let's get moving".. you're ok to do that. Just expect to be debriefed on not rushing. I see the taxi check quite similarly. You're just checking flaps, speeds, trims, flt controls. Every step requires a head-down point-look-read, sometimes thrice, with dual verification from both pilots. It requires more attention than a single person silently reviewing a WDR.

I've always done taxi checks on the go, and still do. We are used to it. It's low threat, but that doesn't mean it's the best practice. If I was king: after start + salute recieved, recommend taxi check with brakes set unless undue delay to ramp operations. Use your judgement, :15 latency is lower priority than increased head-up SA during taxi. Just like we do with the WDR.

2StgTurbine

The WDR verification is much more complicated than the taxi checklist. There are lots of gottchas on a WDR. Lots of important info mixed in with non critical info that you have to navigate. The taxi checklist is straightforward and simply verifying we configured the aircraft correctly. I am much more comfortable doing the taxi checklist on the move than doing the WDR verification on the move.

PilotJ3

We do not measure latency anymore. Take your time.

Trip7

You bring up very good points. The answer to many of your questions is ASAP and operations data has driven much of our procedures. ASAP data has shown pushback has been a very high threat environment that has resulted in numerous incidents, particularly whenwith both pilots heads down during push. That's why one pilot monitoring the push has been emphasized as procedure recently.

WDR related incidents have mostly been from distracted pilots confused why the WDR hasn't auto uploaded. If the the WDR has auto uploaded successfully there is a 99.9% chance the data is good and no need to delay on the ramp to check it. The big WDR gotchas have been incorrect bleed configurations, not accounting for engine anti ice penalties(fleet dependant), and exceeding tailwind limits. Heck it might be better to wait while on the taxiway where you have the most up to date winds to check you're within tailwind limits. If you had a stay at gate message you wouldn't be pushing anyway.

Your technique you recommend if you were King works perfectly fine for non busy ramp operations. It's a very good technique for early morning departures in place like CID, JAN, MOB, DSM, ICT etc, particularly if it's cold with contamination on ramps and taxiways

notEnuf

...or we could just do what we think is safe and not worry about momma D trying to schedule 10lbs of sh!t in a 5lb bag. Flying out of ATL, LGA, SEA and LAX is a choice. Last time I was in LAX I had to get towed in, that delayed things more than a checklist or starting an engine.

Vsop

Do you or anyone know if the company has looked at having the system default to the aircraft tailwind limit? It seems that when I manually do that the performance penalty is negligible on most runways and that avoids the TW00 numbers that are invalid so frequently. To me it’s kinda like how the system assumes wet data.

LeineLodge

Recently forgot to verify NADP2 was set for SFO 1R (the whole airport defaults to NADP1).

We likely would've trapped this on the ER where the tech-cedure was to review the pertinent info together, ending on “page 2” to ensure the THR/ACC numbers were set correctly.

On the Airbus collective review isn’t a thing and makes it very easy for small items to get missed during each pilots’ “silent review.” Almost had an APU requirement sneak through the other day.

Slow is pro in all things.

notEnuf

The default used to be 10kts of tailwind and that was too inefficient. Same with 1000lb "pad." You will have to wait for a new manager that oversees this to have a whole new epiphany about safety and efficiency, that gives them the accolades of improvement, to change it back.