OOfff

scheduling every flight with 10kts of tailwind worth of extra thrust seems like a lot of fuel and engine wear that is generally unnecessary

Trip7

I'm sure they have looked into that and decided it would dramatically increase engine wear and tear therefore increasing maintenance expenses.

Trip7

On the 737 the NADP2 Profile is programmed in the FMS by the PF during Preflight and would be part of the WARTS briefing.

OOfff

SFO is sorta unique in that NAPD1 is only for use on the 28s. But AWABS does it by airport so all departures get NAPD1 uploaded and you have to manually change back to NAPD2. Which is kinda fine, because flying NAPD1 if you wanted NAPD2 is a pretty low threat event

Vsop

When I’ve done it, I normally see a slight decrease in the assumed temperature. For example instead of an assumed temp of 47 it goes to ~44. That doesn’t seem like that much extra engine wear.

During my upgrade fed ride we had variable winds at about 5kts. The WDR spit out flex numbers with TW00, and full thrust with TW10. I didn’t want to exceed that tailwind and I wanted to use reduced thrust. I began sending for new date with a tailwind component. The APD had me send for a TW10, and recommended the technique for most take offs. They claimed to program their flights that way each time. I didn’t know if anyone else was always programming max tailwind or if this was in development.

marcal

***Technique Only*** On the bus after we each do our "silent and independant" review of the WDR, I lay it down on top of the systems keys and go top to bottom out loud verifying each item against the FMS and anything else I can verify(ship number, Flt num, etc) ***Technique Only***

LeineLodge

I like your technique. Saying it out loud makes it more likely the other pilot is going to catch something I say with a “wait what?”

Will probably start going back to this.

Also agree with whoever pointed out missing NADP2 v 1 isn’t that big of a deal…but makes one wonder what else we may have overlooked.

Planetrain

I don’t believe this is true for every fleet. Check the 10-7s for SFO. I think 19LR is NADP1 too. (Relying on memory, not near my efb)

Trip7

My pushback against that is saying it outloud may lead the other pilot down the wrong rabbit hole if the pilot happened to be reading the wrong runway. This has happened on ASAPs. Things that auto upload tend to be correct. This is why we read "as files" on our clearance verification and not the entire route since each pilot verifies the route silently and independently. Other critical WDR items are checked in the Taxi checklist. I do think verbalizing WDR top line, TW limits, Anti-ice penalties and MEL/CDLs matching release are very good techniques.

LeineLodge

I get what you’re saying and agree that it’s a compromise between biasing the other pilot and potentially something important slipping through.

Having now done it fairly recently both ways (out loud review and “silent” review) I’m noting anecdotally that more small items seem to be at risk of slipping through without the conscious, joint review.

Changing topics a little bit, years ago we caught a live animal (family dog) in a bin with the cargo heat on MEL. The two systems apparently don’t talk to each other. Nice to talk about it out loud finishing with “yep they show all the MELs, live/no live” etc etc.

The main value of the joint review that I’ve seen is it pulls both (all) pilots’ focus momentarily to the WDR. When relying on silent review it’s easy to be busy looking everywhere else and we end up with a NADP1 v 2 (no big deal), frozen pupcicle (bad deal) or forget the the APU to pack takeoff (potentially really big deal).

Your argument about the TDU could be used to trap it the other way, flagging a pilot introduced bias for TO position/config. My antennae goes way up when I see the FO handjamming TO data. In that case we’re definitely going to do a nice slow review.

I know, crew prerogative, technique…think I’ve just talked myself back into the joint review.