Inputshaft, crab, devil mars, bob,
Thanks for your input. You've provided some great feedback and helped me confirm some areas of question. I largely concur with all your comments as they are inline with my experience.
Inputshaft; I have indeed been in contact with the ex-CF members, but am casting a larger net via this forum. I'm trying to gather as much knowledge and opinion as I can from sources that may not have been 'tainted' by 'how we always used to do it' so that I can facilitate the eventual discussion/debate from the most informed/prepared position.
Quote: "but, you're definitely confusing your thoughts by inlcuding what you call Stay-Up at OEI MCP in a discussion about take-off calls".
This is the crux of the issue. I don't want to get into too much detail because I'm not entirely sure that I won't be breeching and proprietary or trade restrictions. The OEM did not provide any safe-single charts, and our Project side has asked for some as that's 'what we've always done'. In return, the OEM gave us a Stay-Up speed chart based on OEI Max Cont. Some would argue we should call the speed based on 30s power. So here we are. One way or another something has to change; either what speed we call or what we call that speed.
Performance is not the issue. Cat A depatures are pretty black-and-white as far as expectations and definitions of V speeds and their meaning. It's the CRM particulars of Cat B departures that are in discussion. There's hesitance from some to flat-out adopt civilian Vtoss or TDP calls because it's just too different than what we've always done.
Mars; Quote: "isn't the best place for information/guidance the training department?" and "someone in the company must own the knowledge that led to the proposal to ammend the SOPs; that person must have the had the conceptual view when the procedures were revised..."
Extremely valid. I agree that going to the source should always be the first step in making change, however, right now we are becoming the ones who will have to answer future generations as to the decisions we make right now. Therefore, we had better know why we're making change.
Quote: "I think terminology is often an obstacle to understanding or clearly communicating the situation" and "the introduction of the call will assist with crew coordination but it must be meaningful".
Exactly. We are trying to ensure that we have a complete understanding of the terminology in use and that the calls we derive are consistent with their engineering background, and with the intentions and actions expected between PF and PM/PNF.
Crab; Quote: "if you call flyaway with lots of tarmac ahead of you, the sensible thing would be to land..."
I questioned this very issue when I flew with the RN. It's this sort of ambiguity and lack of defintion that I am trying to avoid.
You're discusions (all y-all's) have given me sufficient confirmation as well as direction for added research. We are at a point where we can lead positive change and are hoping to achieve the best we can. Again, thanks for your input.