Denti: Things have obviously changed since my pencil & rubber days. Improved climb was to use excess runway to reach a Vr & V2 and thus give a better gradient for close in obstacles. It always required highest power setting. This idea of using high speeds and low thrust is a new one to me. Obviously the electrons have a different philosophy to my pencil & rubber with finger in the wind technique.
I've only come across its use as a last resort. Most operators I've flown with did not have the charts as they had enough power in hand for their network. As routes lengthened, and sometimes from hot/high airfields, improved climb charts appeared for the odd time it was needed. The whole matter is becoming less simple. And do the majority of operators now use EFB's? What I've noticed since i-pads have been introduced is that the cadets do not understand what they are doing in the same way. As you say they punch in the numbers, let EFB crunch them up and out pops the answer. It's all so fast. I do not see any gross error checks anymore. They do not have a feeling for numbers; are they sensible. They same with load sheets, V speeds, Vref etc. That feeling for "does it make sense?" is disappearing. It's another cog in the TEM wheel of automation. The only cross check of the i-pad performance calculation is both pilots do it independently. Perhaps that is sufficient. Do all operators do that?