i really respect everyone's opinion and thank for them. but as BOAC said, i am also doubting that my opinion is cleared by everyone or not. Sorry about my english, i'll try to make myself clearer this time.
1. performance limit
the only situation i will consider this method is when taking off from an airport like MLE(capital airport in Maldives) -—we don't need to worry about climb gradient totally in case of an engine failure!
VMC? i really don't think it's necessary for my decision.
2. FAR regulations
Law is law, no negotiation on it, i know this. so i asked a qiz at my first post:" i've ever heard there is 3 different way to design the single-engine inoperative procedure, and one of them is without flaps retracting action? i don't know it's true or not?"
now i am still waiting for the answer.
3.company policy
my company's policy is the same as Boeing's procedure. can we doubt Boeing's procedure?best not before we have adequate proof--so we discuss and we learn.
Boeing is not the GOD, and its procedure is not the Bible,at least we may give it some good supplementary idea--and that's why we have so many company's policy.
acctually, i started this qiz just because i had a chance to give some advise to our company's SOP.
4.briefing between crewmembers
of course we need to brief and get a same expectation before we do that.
5.Asymmetry
good thinking.but let's see Boeing's procedure, you maybe only have 30 sec between retracting and extending flaps
as my company's SOP, PM should monitor how flaps' retracting and extending work and call out any abnormal situation like asymmetrical flaps---i think this rule is good----and this is what i mean "increasing work load"!
recent Qantas A380's engine failure has proved the possibility to a flap's malfunction after an engine failure---that is what i mean "increase potential hazards of system failure such as flaps"
6.icing conditions\critical airport...etc
sorry, i really didn't mean that.