A new company go around procedure required a MCP airspeed selection (lvl or flch) and a flap change ...

Narrative:

We were on a visual approach to runway 28. On very short final tower told us to go around (departing traffic still on runway). I executed the go around using the new procedure. The 800 ft altitude turned out to be an awkward and seemingly inappropriate place to be manipulating the MCP (even if it is by the pilot not flying) and flaps. 800 ft happens fast with go around thrust. It would be safer to be looking for other traffic and paying attention to the airport environment at this point. My workload was substantially increased by trying to execute a procedure that I had only read about in order to learn how to implement the change in SOP. Tower gave us an initial altitude of 4;000 ft. The procedure would have been much easier (and; in my opinion; safer) using our previous technique of climbing out and looking outside for traffic and adherence to tower instructions; not trying to clean anything up until altitude capture. Really; has anyone actually tried to do this new procedure in an actual airplane? This new procedure (and the lack of our training in it) makes me question the safety of its having been added into our SOP's.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A new Company go around procedure required a MCP airspeed selection (LVL or FLCH) and a flap change at 800 FT which made the Reporter feel overwhelmed; unable to monitor traffic and maintain situational awareness.

Narrative: We were on a visual approach to Runway 28. On very short final Tower told us to go around (departing traffic still on runway). I executed the go around using the new procedure. The 800 FT altitude turned out to be an awkward and seemingly inappropriate place to be manipulating the MCP (even if it is by the pilot not flying) and flaps. 800 FT happens fast with go around thrust. It would be safer to be looking for other traffic and paying attention to the airport environment at this point. My workload was substantially increased by trying to execute a procedure that I had only read about in order to learn how to implement the change in SOP. Tower gave us an initial altitude of 4;000 FT. The procedure would have been much easier (and; in my opinion; safer) using our previous technique of climbing out and looking outside for traffic and adherence to Tower instructions; not trying to clean anything up until altitude capture. Really; has anyone actually tried to do this new procedure in an actual airplane? This new procedure (and the lack of our training in it) makes me question the safety of its having been added into our SOP's.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	958924
Time
Date	201107
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Tower
State Reference	US
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B767-300 and 300 ER
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 180 Flight Crew Total 14000 Flight Crew Type 3500
Events
Anomaly	Conflict Ground Conflict Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

A new company go around procedure required a MCP airspeed selection (lvl or flch) and a flap change at 800 ft which made the reporter feel overwhelmed; unable to monitor traffic and maintain situational awareness.