Menen...
That maybe what the Boeing FCTM says. However, I have never had anything to do with 737s, and the BA Manuals differ anyway. That is the privilege of the Operator (BA in this case) and Authority (JAA/CAA) to approve.
I am not saying which is best, or really care. All that matters is that whatever procedure is used is known and practiced by that airline.
In my previous airline, only the Captain could call and initiate a "STOP". 4 engine type. When an Outboard Engine failed, the Captain would call STOP, take control, and the PF would therefore release the controls. Result - if (as called above the Torville and Dean syncronisation!) was not perfect, the aircraft would be off the side of the runway? Hardly ideal...
I could add that manuals such as the Boeing and Airbus FCTM are designed, shall we say, for the lowest common denominator. BA have decided that the level of training and ability of theirs (S)FOs is sufficient to allow them to call STOP in clearly defined circumstances, particularly when they are in a better posiiton to determine the failure.
then perhaps you could arrange for some measured abort tests incorporating your ideas
2 scenarios:[list=1][*]Capt = PF. Eng Fail near V1. PNF watching Eng Insts, sees Failure, calls "STOP". PF initiates RTO...[*]Capt = PF. Eng Fail near V1. PNF watching Eng Insts, sees Failure, calls "Engine Failure". PF either calls STOP immediately in response (hardly made a decision), or searches for some sign that this call is correct, and then calls STOP. PF initiates RTO...[/list=1]I know which one of these will use less distance.
The only potential hazard with the BA way is unnecessary, even hazardous, STOP calls being made. This does not appear in practice, so I am, for one, happy with the BA way. But as I say, it does not mean it is the "best", or only way. You seem set that the Boeing way is the "only" way...?
NoD