Originally Posted by
AerocatS2A
Surely this comes under the category of no applicable callout so feel free to say something in plain language to bring the situation to the attention of the other pilot. This is standard CRM is it not? You say "speed" once the speed is out of tolerance but there is nothing preventing you from saying "caution speed" or something similar ahead of time. As long as you are not replacing standard callouts with your own words, what is the problem?
Yes, I exactly agree with the bold part, but it is one example that the TRI on my last sim session specifically pointed out as incorrect use of plain language.
There were even two of them, which they both agreed upon.
I'd be interested to know some actual examples of what they're picking you up on because your examples aren't very compelling.
So the examples are :
- Exactly the situation above, saying "your speed is gonna get low" or "you lack thrust" as we're slowing down with not enough thrust for the desired target
- With an autobrake failure at landing, as PF I said "it isn't braking, I'm braking". The TRI wanted me to read the EICAS and read "autobrake off" (which isn't standard callout, it's reading the eicas, which I don't see why you would be doing in a critical phase of flight, and doesn't reassure the PM on the fact that the situation is being managed)
- Instead of saying "passing golf lima echo one two at x thousand feet", the purpose of which is to verify the glide, we might say "it's the right glide" or "glide checked". The shorter version is useful because it's a time you need to call the glide mode activating, the go around altitude that the PF just changed, answer some ATC messages, configure flaps.. There are many other things to do than waste syllables on naming the waypoint ?
Also this specific callout isn't related to its goal. The goal is to verify the glide, not to mention the altitude at which a waypoint is passed, this callout would not help to detect a mistake.
- Instead of "stabilizer procedure" I said "stabilizer, shut them off"
About this one, read my original comment :
For example, when refering to a memory item, imagine being with a colleague in the middle of the atlantic right at the lowest of the circadian rythm, who did not study it in three years (it seems that memory items all come back at least every three years in the sim?), who is subject to startle effect, how confident are you that he is going to take the correct action if you just say "XXX procedure" or "XXX memory items", versus if you direct the item(s) to do ?
If I use a word or callout, the receiving person's brain needs extra steps to process it. It needs to refer to knowledge that he has, and accessing memory necessarily takes a bit longer and carries a bigger risk of error than just doing something that is directed.
In a real situation, this alarm being the most critical one on our type, the priority is not to say the correct word, it is to get the action done as quickly as possible.
And I don't have much else, all other things that we have to say, we said them. All the callouts for flaps and gear, for FMAs, the "thousand to go"s, the checklists, the confirm items, the stall and other maneuvers callouts, the control transfers, we all do them by the book.
I'm really surprised because they won't ever criticise a decision if all crew agreed on it (as in, for decision making what counts is how the crew works as a team), but they will criticise a non standard callout (for example saying "set speed 250" in our language instead of using the same in english which is the official way) even if it was understood. That seems contradictory to me.
And also given the amount of callout mistakes (just a few) and the importance of the topic (seemingly pretty low) I'm surprised that it took up such a big part of the debriefing.
The explanation is that apparently it's a topic that the authority is monitoring, so of course they tend to pick up more of that stuff during the sessions. It shows that they are following the authorities guidance.