Enunciation of MCP indications. An overkill perhaps?
Both Boeing and Airbus recommend crews enunciate all changes to MCP selections. Meaning,when selections are made someone should read out the indication aloud.
On top of that there are operators who include more "calls" to suit local SOP. Recently, a 737 operator added another requirement that the enunciation call must be promptly initiated by the PF. This caused a minor moment of irritation when an over-eager co-pilot anxious to prove something, snapped out the enunciation before the captain as PF had the chance to say anything. When the captain queried this over eager young buck, the YB said " the SOP said it had to be done promptly and you were too slow so I said it"
This type of petty point scoring is more common than realised and is often the source of friction. It is not "good CRM" as some claim, but blatant stupidity.
I flew in another era where a silent cockpit was encouraged. Both pilots had two eyes, and the argument was what is the point of unnecessary enunciation when a glance to confirm an MCP selection was all that was needed. Saying something aloud after an MCP selection does not always ensure the correct selection is made. How many time in the past have we heard the parrot-like call "Undercarriage down three greens) in reply to a checklist challenge when in fact the gear had not been selected?
The old SOP of no non-operational calls below 10,000 ft was understandable. Some may remember from years ago, the accident to a PANAM Boeing 707 approaching to land on Sydney Airport Runway 25. In those days it was a shortish runway.
The flight path was over a large public cemetery with the co-pilot remarking they were flying over the dead heart of Sydney. Laughter in the cockpit. The Australian new T-VASIS was installed for this runway and the captain remarked about the funny looking VASIS. He had not seen a T-VASIS before.
In the event, the 707 landed too fast and too long and went into the river at the far end of the runway. This was one of several accidents that prompted the now universally generally accepted SOP of no unnecessary talking below 10,000 ft.
Now we see a proliferation of cockpit enunciations below 10,000 ft starting with "N1 TOGA" as the aircraft starts its take off roll. Do we really need to enunciate that reading on the MCP? Cannot we see the reading visually?
It seems the slightest incident prompts airline managements to counter with still more voluble call-outs. Reminds me of the time in the simulator when a Japanese recruitment check pilot was observing a simulator assessment of candidates for his airline.
On the downwind leg of the assessment circuit, the candidate in the left seat was Spanish. Acting as support pilot and waiting his turn in the right seat was a voluble Eastern European captain. Man, how he could talk, prompting continually in rapid accented English. The pilot under test in the left seat simply switched off and did his own thing ignoring the babble of "advice" from the co-pilot.
It was clear the Japanese check pilot in the jump seat didn't have a clue what all the talking was about as his own English language skills were minimal. However he praised the co-pilot for "excellent CRM" for all his babbling despite the fact the assessing captain had no idea of what was actually being said. To the Japanese check pilot more talking meant good "CRM"
I wonder have we gone too far in all this enunciating of every MCP selection, and every action. Do we really need to reply to a request for flaps with "Speed checked - flap Five selected - Flap Five running- Flap Five set"?
I know nature abhors a vacuum. But have we gone too far from the silent cockpit principle, to instead filling the golden silence with superfluous enunciations of things we can see with our own eyes?