tdracer: Indeed, that is correct and I was less than accurate in my choice of words. It sounds like you may be able to answer some other ones then.
Back to Lance: On previous Boeings our 2 eng GA procedure was the same as a normal takeoff. An engine out acceleration was the same. i.e. a stressful less practiced manoeuvre was the same as the everyday well practiced low stress one. There are 4 profiles, takeoff EFATO, 2 eng GA, SE GA. They could all be the same but our B737 SOP's had differences. Takeoff has SOP to engage A/P at 1000'. Low stress if in crowded or claustrophobic airspace. 2 engine GA SOP to fly manually until flaps up. High workload for PF & PM, perhaps in unfamiliar airspace and with a WTF moment. Why not use A/P? Done it in the sim and it works fine: did it once on the line for airmanship reasons and it worked fine. The result is that MCP speed bug controls speed and not the flap lever, the profile is the same as a normal takeoff and the workload in an unusual manoeuvre is reduced. (And, if you have flown an A/P ILS and then GA the A/T stays engaged and the A/P disengages, are we supposed to disconnect A/T during acceleration to standardise?) SOP guys said it was due Boeing recommendation.
A common story in all my companies, and on prune, is the most screwed up simple manoeuvre is the all engine GA. Why make it different to a normal takeoff? If it was as similar as possible then perhaps less screw ups. (the same is true with RTO SOP's & calls v normal landing SOP's & calls; but that's a discussion for another day)
Same with engine failure. In sim I tried it, engaged A/P at 1000' accelerated like a normal takeoff (with less V/S) and concentrated on navigation and balancing the rudder. It was so easy to manage the NNC operation like that with a clear head. SOP was manual flight until Flaps up. Same with SE GA. You might be flying an A/P on A/T off ILS then GA manually. !000' A/P on if you require. Not allowed. Same reason given for rushing to retract flaps above 400' instead of a relaxed 1000'. Qeh? It's allowed, technically, but it's not a recommendation. Don't rush is the recommendation. Why? Boeing recommendation. Yet the ops manual suggested full use of automatics as required to improve overview and management of the operation.
I may be not quite correct with "Boeing recommendation", but that was the answer given. There maybe a Boeing 'not allowed', but that wasn't said. However the AFDS allows its selection, and it works fine in the sim, and if it reduces workload and improves overview and thus safety, why would it not be allowed? Some behind the buttons guidance and knowledge would be appreciated. Thanks.