We use basic Airbus manuals. We are allowed to do this procedure from memory, which does not pose many problems in itself.
The PF is not involved in the startup.
Airline is european mainline with 100+ airbuses at this time.
However I'm going to contradict many people here : the gain is not huge.
Being an F/O, I always followed the CP's opinion regarding SETO. I do not care personnally about doing it or not, it's not directly out of or in my pocket. So I had plenty of opportunities to work both with captains who loved to do it, and others who never did it.
To me, dual engine taxi out works like insurance. You may pay a little bit more at each leg (however we'll see about that) but you will pay a lot whenever problems will arise. And it balances out. You may save a few bucks over thousands of flights, but you will lose them all when the procedure is mis-applied and leads to an incident, and flight cancellation.
So why doesn't save as much as we can think ? SETO has a slower taxi speed. I've seen people say on some occasions that SETO is doable even on very short taxi routes. And to have enough time to start up the second engine, warm it up and do all the procedures, they will taxi even slower.
So let's be clear. Having the APU on and one engine burns the same fuel per kilometer taxied at 20kt, than having two engines, no APU, and taxiing at 30kt. It turns out that these are typical speeds that are reached in single engine and dual engine taxi. So fuel consumption may be close to equivalent.
However costs might be slightly smaller since you're reducing engine time on the shut off engine. Yes.
I still feel like it goes against flight safety, and efficiency of the flight. If you're having a high workload while taxing, starting engines, running through flows and checklists, a lot of talking, there is a higher chance of missing important trafic information going on on the frequency. On several occasions, a too talkative colleague made us miss important radio calls from other planes directly conflicting with us.
It also goes against flight safety to be starting engines while taxiing. All possible errors have been made or will be made. Taxiway excursion. Shutting down the live engine. Even takeoff attempt on single engine. That's without talking about the before takeoff procedures which may be easily shortened due to time pressure.
To finish with, I had one example which finished to convince me against it. One time, first flight of the day, we were performing a single engine taxi out and had a failure while starting the second engine. Some mechanical part was broken.
We took one hour just to find a new parking spot. Had we been just in front of our gate, we would have had our own parking spot back for ourselves. We ended up with a distant parking, everything about the repair and second departure to our destination was made more complicated.
I doubt I performed enough SETO, in the entire rest of my carreer on this plane, to compensate just for all the missed connections on that day (all of them for the entire day)
If fuel price triples and on airplanes allowed to single engine taxi without the APU, it may become a sound choice.