Non Standard communication

[jimmyg]

As a contract pilot and TRI on the Airbus flying with many different organization and cultures all over the world. I find it interesting, if not at times disturbing at the amount of non standard communication. Basically announcing anything and everything beyond the standard callouts. Many items are very old callouts which seem to have been passed along even though they have been removed many years ago. My opinion flying with so many different foreign nations is that standard communication be a must.

I mean if this help someone stay focused, then I find it hard to fault them. Where I draw the line is when they expect me to respond "check"and repeat the call?? However it serves no purpose to myself and only adds as a distraction. I wish they could keep it to themselves rather than verbalize the obvious.

I have observed this to be most prevalent on the Airbus rather than Boeing.
This lack of standardization appears to have taken a sharp increase over the years.

What are some of the non standard communication you are experiencing at your outfit?

Share your thoughts.....

[pineteam]

I hear you. It’s kinda annoying. I dislike also the people adding extra non stantard call out or not using the correct terminology. A couple of examples who drive me crazy are the guys who will call “ clear right side” every 10 seconds when I’m taxiing and I can clearly see outside. Or the guys calling “ 600 to go” because they missed the “1000 to go” call out.
Or the guys calling “ Glideslope” or “Speed” when I’m flying raw data and I’m only 1/4 dot deviation and -2kt from the VAPP. Or the ones getting agitated on their seat and looking outside for that traffic on Tcas descending then calling “ traffic in sight” but it’s still 4000 feet above us.. Lol
So many more things I could write a book xD. Unless they are trying to challenge me, or they have willing to learn, asking questions, I keep quiet and try to enjoy the flight and let them do their weird stuffs cause I beleive most of them feel more confortable doing it or just don’t know well the SOP.

[jimmyg]

Dear Pineteam,

I am doing some research for a future article, so you all's input will be of great assistance.

Lol....yes even better still calling 1000' to go even though we are well within 1000' People do not get my dry humor....I ask if Alt are off by over 250' and we have not gotten an ECAM...weird huh?:rolleyes:

I fly with so many different operation, I just ignore most of them. Unless it is a training event will I question them. Funny thing most will swear up and down that it is a SOP call. When asked politely to please "lets look it up" they have no idea even where to find normal callouts. I guess therein lies the rub.

Basic task sharing and communication has eroded to a point where non standard calls and tasks have festered into perceived standard calls or tasks.

[nj314]

@pineteam: agree that the ”600 to go” call is not standard, but, what to say if you miss the 1000 call and want to bring back attention to the altitude capture?

Another situation where I have to make up my own call out, is when I see the PF flying visual and he is way to far from the center line. I don’t know what is the call out, so I call “center line” lol.

Any suggestions?

[RAT 5]

examples that drive me crazy are the guys who will call “ 600 to go” because they missed the “1000 to go” call out.

Lol....yes even better still calling 1000' to go even though we are well within 1000' People do not get my dry humor....I ask if Alt are off by over 250' and we have not gotten an ECAM...weird huh?


"1000 to go." has 2 functions. Alert + X-check. I've had it where PM did not set 1013 when instructed, even though we called a x-check at the change.
So IMHO the SOP call is the truth so the altimeter check is correct.

In similar fashion I hate when the 80kts call is missed on takeoff and the PM chirps up "we've passed 80." Useless. Just call what speed it is because one reason is an ASI check.

So why not the same with altimeters?

Regarding what to call; I also followed the basic philosophy to call the parameters that is in error. i.e. Hey, buddy you need to look at XX.

However, there was a story on another airbus thread about the auto-callout 'speed' when it meant low energy on approach i.e. power. I recalled a scenario on B737 where the speed was going to decay due to too low power. It hadn't yet, but in my 'hey buddy you need to check the N1%' thinking, I called "power" and PF reduced it more. Oops.

[pineteam]

If I missed the “1000 to go” then too bad, I try not to forget next time. I don’t say anything else or still call “1000 to go” when it’s close enough cause it’s not written I shall do any other call out. I always make sure to check the alt* engagement and the standard call out by PF. Often it’s impossible to do that call anyway as the alt* will engage close to 1000 to go and PF will be reading the FMA and PM will acknowledge. Or We will be busy with ATC. I personally beleive, talking for Airbus, this call out is not critical enough to add a non standard call out.. Saying that, if I miss the “100kt” during take off roll, I will call “110kt” as this one is really an important call. That’s the only exception I can think of. IMHO, the less we talk, the better it is. I like to save my energy in case something serious happens.
Saying that, I always try to be very sharp on the SOP & standard call out. If we strictly comply with the SOP, there is less chance of confusion. We speak the same language. When I fly with very standard FOs, the job is so much easier, the flows are smooth. But some guys will add some new call out, talk so much or do part of my flow... It really drains me sometimes. Lol.

This topic reminds me that when I was Fo, I used to play a game with a captain friend of mine: Every time you would miss a “1000 to go” call then you would owe the PF a beer. I’ve never been so sharp calling “1000 to go” xD.


@NJ314

Good question. Same as you, we don’t have standard call out for the centerline. Most guys will call “centerline” like you mentionned and for the PAPI also we don’t have anything. Guys will call “3 whites” or “4 red” for example. I’m also interested to know what other airlines do.

[Check Airman]

@pineteam

"Watch your glideslope"

"I know you drive on the right, but we land in the middle"

[Smokey Lomcevak]

Its interesting to hear everyone's observations. I share some of them - sometimes I can be left with the feeling of "what am i supposed to say in response to that?", when I'm confronted with a non-standard call out. Similarly, there are made up SOP's, stuff some would call "custom and practice", and I'm sure we could have a whole separate thread on that...

I don't like that feeling of uncertainty, of "what have I missed", or even of "what does this guy want me to do?"

So, a plea, if I may... If, as a Captain, there is something that you feel strongly about, something that irks you, something you find people doing that you think is superfluous, or something that the SOP's omit but that you think airmanship demands, please brief it. The chances are that they picked it up from someone else who felt it was important, or he or she was trained that way. So set the tone, and let your mate know what is expected of him or her. If they're anything like me, they'll respect you for it.

[victorpapa]

My isues are with:

Request FL360 .. if available

Charlie Charlie

Squawk comming down

....and ABC123 request ...(no words before the word ‘and’)

...’The’ ABC123

we have him on TCAS

[mustafagander]

VP
How about you add fully ready to that? You're either ready or you're not, too easy.

[pineteam]

“ABC, Confirm fully ready?” “Negative, only 3/4 ready ABC” xD It’s a well spread disease in Asia. Some people will claim “fully ready” means doors closed and tow truck connected but like everytime when someone is saying something questionable I always ask: “ Can you show me where it’s written?”
It’s definetely not in Doc 4444.
Or the people saying: “ with you” also is non standard and completely unnecessary. If you talk to the ATC, you are “with them” I can promiss you that. xD

One question I can’t find the answer:
If ATC calls you and just says: “ABC, tower.”
How do you reply: “ Tower, ABC, Go ahead” or “ GO ahead for ABC” or something else?? Can’t find any reference for that one.

[Check Airman]

I'll agree with you on "fully ready" and "with you".

You may be splitting hairs on the tower call though...

[G-V]

@pineteam: agree that the ”600 to go” call is not standard, but, what to say if you miss the 1000 call and want to bring back attention to the altitude capture?

Another situation where I have to make up my own call out, is when I see the PF flying visual and he is way to far from the center line. I don’t know what is the call out, so I call “center line” lol.

Any suggestions?

Right of the centerline

[Fantome]

Regarding the centre line: Approach control told KLM he was left of the centre line. Captain - (pronounced Dutch accent) "That is correct. And my first officer is right of it."

[RAT 5]

I used to inform my students that sometimes it is only a yes/no black/white answer.
e.g. "are you ready?" ....."Almost." There are others.

That's like being almost pregnant. It means nothing and is a waste of energy.

[Its Maui]

In my outfit the responses to the checklist are so varied and non-standardised that when the FO is PM they have to wait for the PF to finish the particular response and leave a gap to make sure they've stopped talking. This means the checklist is very clunky/stop and start and removes to ability for the PM to ensure the response is correct because it can be different every time! Defeating the purpose of a checklist!

And when the FO is PF the skipper fires through the checklist expecting their own responses read back to them and visually reacts when they don't hear what they want!

It's quite funny and tragic at the same time.

[QATest]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/287x52/1_287x52_b96408d2450c771d56feec4b4ff1fd670422a8b2.jpg
Test team test

[jimmyg]

Thank for bringing this more egregious use of non standard communication. Check list examples are on the top of my list of communication no no's.

The one I see the most at my outfit on the Airbus is on after start C/L-pitch trim...."0.6 up" when the response clearly states a %.

Check list challenge and response are well defined and any change would be viewed by regulators as changing an approved document.

[pineteam]

Oh the checklist... another good example indeed.
what grinds my gears is the facts some guys will do part of the checklist by heart or will not check anything while reading it or not proper checking. Like for the parking brakes, seat belt, predictive windshear, they will look at the switch instead of looking at the Ecam memo.
Or one last people who will call the check list in a non standard way: « Before start checklist down to the line » instead of the correct shorter way: « Before start checklist ».

[Killaroo]

Another SOP discussion.

This one reminds me of the incident report I read of a certain mishandled CAT2 Go Around where the thrust levers weren't selected to TOGA and the a/c almost hit the runway.
The FO was asked if he realised what was happening. He said he did.
He was asked why he didn't say anything.
His reply was he couldn't remember the correct Standard Callout.
:{

[Check Airman]

Or one last people who will call the check list in a non standard way: « Before start checklist down to the line » instead of the correct shorter way: « Before start checklist ».

How would you call for the checklist if you wanted it read in its entirety, above and below the line?

[Check Airman]

Speaking of non-std things and overly prescriptive SOP, our SOP is to point to the altitude when cleared to a new altitude.

It doesn't say what we should use to point to the altitude though. We just spent the past 2 days using elbows, pens, pencils, knuckles, napkins and whatever else I could find to point to the altitude.

On another occasion, it was noted that the "line" on our before start checklist was actually a row of dots. On that trip, the callout was "before start checklist, down to the dots"

Nice when you can fly with someone who's got the big picture, instead of worrying about when to turn on the anti-ice during engine start.

[pineteam]

How would you call for the checklist if you wanted it read in its entirety, above and below the line?

Good question. It’s true sometimes we are clear for push back and we did not do the Before start checklist down to the line yet. In that case I expect my partner to read everything as it’s pretty obvious IMHO. Some guys will say: « Before start checklist all the way » to make clear his intention.

[jimmyg]

Dear Killaroo,

I understand and agree with what you are saying; SOP vs. AIRMANSHIP. When the doo-doo hits the fan prioritizing the golden 3 are paramount. Missing the forest for the trees can be problematic.

Many times I have used the analogy of not falling into the trap of the cockpit robot, doing and calling without thinking or understanding. All the reasons you have stated are valid in today's overly obtuse organisations standards.

Fortunately or not, in this day and age of low hour pilots coupled with highly automated aircraft have set forward a reliance on standardization over airmanship. Although the adherence to SOP's should not be underestimated. Do not let ego and complacency be used as an excuse for good airmanship. Studies have been done on the effects of the "Normalization of complacency and deviation" Adhering to SOP's, whether it be checklists or standard callouts are there for this very reason.

[Check Airman]

Good question. It’s true sometimes we are clear for push back and we did not do the Before start checklist down to the line yet. In that case I expect my partner to read everything as it’s pretty obvious IMHO. Some guys will say: « Before start checklist all the way » to make clear his intention.

It's obvious to you, but perhaps not to the other party. One could also mage a safety related argument about you assuming the other person to know what you want. See the problem?

My point is, there's nothing wrong with adding "to the line". He's making sure that you're aware of where he intends to stop. I'd rather a non-standard unambiguous call, than a standard, ambiguous one. I put that in the "airmanship" category.

[Check Airman]

On the topic of calls for deviations. Here in the US, the companies that I've seen simply say to call out the deviation, followed by a list of examples.

It goes without saying (here, at least) that the list of 4 or so things is not meant to be exhaustive.

It's interesting that in one thread, some people lament the overly prescriptive SOPs, while others seem lost without guidance for the most trivial of things.

[pineteam]

I undestand your point. But saying that extra bit is non standard. Some guys will say that all the time even when it’s not ambiguous. I agree in that particular case, it makes things more clear. But 95% of the time it’s standard ops and if I ask for the “before start checklist” They should reply ” before start checklist” only and read until « Down to the line” as per SOP. I’m not going to break their nuts if they say more, I just think it’s unnecessary.

[Killaroo]

Which is more important - super accurate ‘Standard Calls’ or CRM?

The reason I ask is that I’ve worked in two different types of airline. One with excellent CRM (but not so rigid adherence to STD Calls), and one which at least pushes rigid STD Calls but has crap CRM.

What I found was the team with good CRM were always great at trapping errors.

With the other lot, the ‘enforcement’ of petty SOPs (Clear LeftSIDE, not Clear Left!) had awful CRM, and silly mistakes were common.

I quickly realised that this obsession with ‘the mouth music’ was often in fact just a weak pilots way of proving his ‘ability’.

I flew with many FOs who treated these verbal gymnastics (check to the line/down to the line, whatever) as a competition. Most often these were the guys who had sat in the RHS a year or two longer than they felt they should, and you could feel the resentment oozing out of their every pore. They might have spent a week or two recently flying with a Captain who they felt ‘wasn’t as good as them’, and the frustration at their misfortune was palpable.
Their mouth music adherence had little to do with accuracy, it was intended to boost their fragile ego, and weaken and undermine the guy in the LHS. All done at the expense of the CRM in that cockpit.
I’m sure many Captains have met these types and faced such naked challenges to the cockpit gradient. A basic breakdown of CRM.

I sat in a Jumpseats once and watched an FO playing that game, until the Captain blew his top and issued a screaming tirade at the (suddenly cringing) FO. And that was just the Before Takeoff Checklist! Nice way to start a 14 hour night flight.

Seriously - there are bigger threats to safety than a less than perfect checklist responses.
Think about keeping the lines of communication open first.

[pineteam]

Killaroo I hear you. I totally agree with you. But the subject was about non standard communication. I never picked an Fo because he was not saying things exactly by the books. Actually I never had any kind of arguments since I was released in June last year. I used to hate when captains will give me inputs every 2 seconds for anything I won’t do the way he wants things to be done. For me, as long as I can undestand what my colleague is saying, that’s good enough for me. I remember as an Fo, I reported « Pin in sight » and the captain got pissed off at me cause I did not say « SAFETY Pin in sight » Lol. So annoying. And yes he was one of the guys always nervous while flying.
But you have to admit that guys doing the checklist by memory is disrespectful or the ones who have been flying for a decade and still does not know how to properly read a checklist that’s kinda amazing. Just saying it here, but never bullied anyone about it. I let the instructors do that. If one thing I learned when I was an Fo is not to do the same annoying things that captains do to the Fos. I could also write a book about it. xD

[ChinaBeached]

From my experience the problem is systemic and cultural. The prime example is RT. When I, and I assume many others started at the flying school, academy or where ever, we learnt our RT from the instructors we had. We learned the CAR's on VFR and IFR flight, the AIP, the privileges and limitations of our licenses but never was the CAAP or ICAO docs studied on correct RT.

Last week I flew with one of the airline's cadets. His entire career from 0 to ATPL wide body SFO has been with this airline. On the topic of SOPs he advocated quite confidently how he can't stand "those guys" who follow "all" the SOP's. "I mean, you don't want to be so rigid where you follow all of them! How annoying would that be!? It was an easy going conversation but I asked him which of the SOPs does he deem important to enforce and which of them he doesn't? I also asked which of the SOPs related to safety and security were the ones he preferred over others? So my point is, this kid is a direct product of the system and culture of training and those experiences. It has formed his traits as a "pilot". And he is the future? Doing the wrong thing has become the "cool" thing or the norm because trainers, training departments and line pilots accept it or want it so.

There are plenty of documented studies from prominent CRM academics on SOP compliance and why pilots and crews deliberately breach them. Interesting reading, unfortunately!

Killaroo & Jimmy - I get where you're coming from however therein lies the issue. One Capt, TRE/I believes it must be done one way, another differently and another different again. FO's are scratching their heads. And this culture or attitude is transferred on to them, and so on. I've learnt that being the super cool easy-going guy willing to let it all slide too far is fraught with more troubles than not. I'm a firm believer that training starts off as pure black and white. Many disagree with me, and I get it. In fact a few years ago I would have too! I believe it should be "flapS" or "SAFETY pin in sight" if that is what is written. Over the top? Perhaps. But how can we know what grey is if we don't appreciate or define what black and white is first?? Build (train) from a strong foundation then go from there. Day to day line flying allows for the grey as airmanship allows. But when we start with grey it becomes so mirky in that SOPs may as well not even exist.

[RAT 5]

Chinabeached: Last paragraph some excellent points, especially in this day & age where there re many more cadets entering RHS than ever before, and guys moving over to LHS so much earlier than before. The amount of experience/airmanship in either seat, at the start of their careers, is much less than was.

from earlier:
He was asked why he didn't say anything.
His reply was he couldn't remember the correct Standard Callout.

I flew in an airline which was very pilot/airmanship orientated, but also where SOP discipline was strict. After rotation the call was "positive rate" by PM and "gear up" by PF. I then went to an airline where it was "gear up" by PF and "positive climb" by PM.

Then I used to train experienced pilots coming into the 2nd airline from others. I learnt a myriad of calls for this simplest of manoeuvres. However, in the early days some guys' memories blanked out and you could see the wheels grinding. Meanwhile the wheels were still dangling. I suggested prioritising and to say something that made sense such the the wheels were retracted. Their eyes lit up like stars in a, "are we allowed to do that" moment of joy.

[pineteam]

In our SOP, we have a chapter dedicated to standard call out from the moment we arrived at the aircraft until the securing. Pretty much everything is written black and white and yet some people are unable to comply with it. I mean come on how difficult it is to remember standard phraseology that you are using every day?
@ChinaBeached: I had the same problem when you say some Instructors will say one thing and the next day you fly with another instructor who will say the opposite thing. Lol. As a Fo it’s hard work as you have to adjust yourself for every flight to please the guy on the left who has his own way of flying. Fortunately those guys are a minority.

[Check Airman]

In our SOP, we have a chapter dedicated to standard call out from the moment we arrived at the aircraft until the securing. Pretty much everything is written black and white and yet some people are unable to comply with it. I mean come on how difficult it is to remember standard phraseology that you are using every day?
I would suggest that's part of the problem. I'm mot an actor rehearsing lines in a play. I'm an airline pilot working in a dynamic environment. Standard calls are very important, but to prescribe every word that comes out of my mouth is counter-productive.

The guy who came up with that chapter has lost the plot.

[pineteam]

Let’s agree to disagree then. I actually really like the fact that most call outs are written black and white. This way, there is no argument possible and less chance of confusion. We have more than 30 nationalities in my company, with some people including myself with a strong accent; It’s very easy to missundestand each other. To give an example, we had an incident where the PF was an instructor with an average english level doing line training and did a non standard call out at acceleration altitude : « Speed Two Five Zero ». The Fo with only few hours on type, undestood « Flaps Zero » but the speed was below S speed so asked the captain: « are you sure ? » and the captain firmly replied: « Yes! » then you had guessed what went wrong. He retracted the flaps. This would have been avoided if the instructor were using standard phraseology. In that case, no speed call out should be made since it’s not part of the FMA. But if you want to call the speed, by our SOPM, it’s : « Two Five Zero KNOTS ». That extra word would had prevented this incident. It’s not complicated to comply with the standard call out. It’s not like there is hundreds of them. When you know them it’s natural. Now lots of people deviate slightly from the callouts, fair enough, I don’t mind as long it’s clear, I really don’t care. I’m trying to stick as much as possible to what’s written in the books cause that’s what my colleagues expect to hear. Of course we don’t have call out for every situation. That’s impossible. For the rest, I just use good airmanship and that’s it.

[Basil]

How would you call for the checklist if you wanted it read in its entirety, above and below the line?
PNF: "Checklist complete to the line."
PF: "Through the line."

[RAT 5]

I flew with a B737NG operator. The acceleration call was "Bug UP." There were many cadets in the mix, but the error was not limited to them. You guessed it; there were enough Flaps UP selected (F1 takeoffs) that the SOP was changed. F5 was the new standard and the call changed. I can't remember what to. Previous types in the company had fixed speed schedules and so the call was 210kts on previous types.
I then went to another growing airline which was in transition of models in exactly the same way, even F1 takeoffs. I told my earlier story and was met by black stares. Hm. The Boeing SOP ws "Bug UP" so that was that. I wonder why Boeing didn't think of an alternative e.g. "UP speed."

[Check Airman]

Ah. Well when you mention the language barrier with 30 nationalities, it certainly makes more sense. Here in the US, we generally don't have that exception (unless you're flying with someone from the South 😜).

Instructors who harp on (what we consider) small things like that don't last too long in the training department.

[Basil]

Ah. Well when you mention the language barrier with 30 nationalities, it certainly makes more sense. Here in the US, we generally don't have that exception (unless you're flying with someone from the South 😜).

Instructors who harp on (what we consider) small things like that don't last too long in the training department.
You should try a Cathay course. If the checklist says 'Flaps 20' and you say 'Flap 20' then that is unacceptable.
I was going to print a :rolleyes: but their reasoning is that they employ a range of different first language speakers, including Chinese, and it is for the avoidance of confusion.

I'll refrain from any more little CX training stories ;)

[Escape Path]

Well, while I do like the fact that the usual everyday callouts be set "in black and white", after all that's why they're for, i.e. a "standard operation", I have my own naggings too, which due to some reason or another have sort of propagated. We do have the "clear righ/left side" chap/gal every 10 seconds even when both of us can see the "affected area", that one annoys me quite a bit, but not as much as the one who thinks this should get a response! One captain asked me if I heard them call clear left/right because I didn't say anything back. Well, first of all, if we're getting THAT rigid, I don't have to by SOP, second of all, it's of no use calling clear if we can both see that side. I had this very same captain coming up with a funny "reprimand" of having me on comms while I did the approach preparation (instead of him taking both controls and comms) because when I transferred over to him I said "you have controls" and he was adamant it was "control", singular. Give me a break...

While the adherence to standard calls is quite helpful in standard and non standard situations, and I do try to be as standard as I can within reason and practicality, both to my fellow pilot and to ATC, these kind of things do nothing for CRM and instead you break it down by annoying the other person with such trivial things (even if trivial can be relative). Clear communication is the basis of mutual understanding and I've found that in moments of stress/high workload, just mentioning the particular situation in a clear way gets the job done, and an extra S in "control" is not going to cause mayhem. But I have, however, as some has pointed out, noticed that these rigid and by-the-book 110% types can take longer to get out of a mess (sometimes even agravating the situation by misscommunicating or at least failing to communicate clearly or as intended) than the more "practical" guys. Airmanship takes precedence over anything (as has been pointed out in the thread about OEI+loss of cabin press) and I'd rather have a "non standard pilot" telling me things like they are in a clear manner and not a "standard pilot" confusing the calls for abnormal situations, as it is often the case.

Someone asked about a call for low/high on the PAPI. We do have one: "Above/below profile". I think it was Check Airman who asked for how we would call for "complete" before start check. While I reckon it's not the usual way to do it, hence the lack of a call for that, when we do have the particular case where it is practical to read it all the way, I've heard it being called (being in a Latin outfit) "Leamos Before Start completa", which would literally translate to something like "let's read Before Start check fully". I've also heard "Before Start check including below the line". Regardless of the way being called, in this instance I do call "below the line" and carry on reading without instruction . Personal habit maybe, and perhaps it wouldn't make a difference if I skip the line call altogether, but I like reading the whole checklist as usual, just skipping the confirmation for the "below" since I was already instructed to skip it.

Oh and about the centerline call on a visual I'd just say with a lot of sarcasm and a big grin and excited eyes "oh cool, I've always wante to land an A320 on the grass!" If that doesn't get your attention, no "track" or whatever call will

[pineteam]

Hahaha Escape Path! Your comment about “clear left side” and the guy nagging about “ You have control” with no “s” I encountered the exact same situation! Looks like those guys have nothing better to do! xD

[A Squared]

"Logbook .... "

[Check Airman]

"Logbook .... " (https://youtu.be/VN82J_X7J7A)

😀😀😀 As I said, unless they're from Texas...

[Escape Path]

Hahaha Escape Path! Your comment about “clear left side” and the guy nagging about “ You have control” with no “s” I encountered the exact same situation! Looks like those guys have nothing better to do! xD

Funny enough, I later had a sim session with this same pilot and we had a manual flight session in which we had to do circuits with autopilot and autothrust off (everything else being normal) and he didn't even know how much thrust to set on finals... He lost any moral authority he had on me to correct me on those kind of nitpicks after that

[ChinaBeached]

I think the / my point may have been lost. “Airmanship” I’d like to think encompasses knowing what to prioritise & how to get the job done safely & efficiently. Picking a fight with a colleague over a call that has no relevance to getting on with the job is in itself pathetic.

As mentioned, from my experience from an academic, FO, Capt & instructor point of view has caused me to try to look at the “WHY”. If a pilot can’t or doesn’t get the basic SOPs right I ask why. Is he/she lazy & just not read them? Unprofessional & not care? Poorly trained (mostly in my experience!)? Or an arrogant pain in the ar$e who always knows better...? If a pilot can’t or refuses to get the minimums right then what else is lacking?

I’ve flown with a pilot who called a checklist completed when it hadn’t even be read through in a challenge - response manner because in his mind it was done anyway. A waste of his valuable time of course.... The same guy then later tried to insist on some absolutely mind boggling theory as to when & why to perform an RTO. Here’s an example of pure arrogance, ignorance & woeful recruitment as well as very bad training.

I’ve also seen a report on an instructor who gave a crew a conditional pass for failing to conduct a go-around due an automatic “GLIDEDLOPE - GLIDSLOPE” EGPWS callout below 1000 ft AGL. The crew were dealing with a OEI & other engine with moderate to severe vibration/stall/surge with N1 > 50%. The instructor argued the SOP is clear if the approach is unstable...! The crew of course argued common sense. In order to maintain authority the training dept maintained the grade. (To me it only highlights an extremely weak check & training culture at this airline).

I still believe that we must know what black & white is until we can decide or agree what the grey is. And when it isn’t ask why.

[Check Airman]

Speaking of non-standard communication, the colleague I'm flying with doesn't say "checklist below the line". He prefers "let's do belows" 😎

[sonicbum]

Any non standard communication/callout/procedure, if not motivated by a safety condition, can and will be used against You in case of any event investigation, even minors ones, where CVR data analysis is required. Why risking ? Nowadays I believe we are dealing with sufficient amount of external potential headaches to add more on our own.

[RAT 5]

The topic of 'non-standard communication' was opened with examples of intra crew chat. The concept of its effect on safety has been mentioned. The discussion could be widened to pilots-ATC. I wonder if the situation at JFK has changed in the past 20 years. It was amusing to hear, on my first visit, the vaudeville performances of some.

ATC, "XYZ establish localiser 4L and call the glide." XYZ, "OK were on the glide & starting to slide."

ATC, "Commuter ABC, cleared for takeoff; immediate left turn en-route. " ABC,"OK, here we go, see ya."

What's it like these days? What was the case is the clearance ATC controllers mouths worked faster than many of the foreign crews ears.

[Escape Path]

To be honest, the worst phraseology I've heard it's from US pilots. This includes gems like "we are low on gas" from an AA crew hitting diversion fuel on a Latin American mountainous airfield, and my all time favorite: "all balls on the altimeter" for a setting of 30.00"

[Check Airman]

We're not known for our high RT standards...

[Pugilistic Animus]

"all balls on the altimeter" for a setting of 30.00"
I haven't heard that one yet

[pineteam]

« Climbing to ten thousand » instead of « one zero thousand. »
« Eighteen One » instead of « one one Eight decimal one » are some common ones I heard from US carriers. That does not bother me tho.

[Pugilistic Animus]

No joy...tallyho..Point Niner to the ramp...

[Vessbot]

« Eighteen One » instead of « one one Eight decimal one » are some common ones I heard from US carriers. That does not bother me tho.

I'm calling myself out guilty of this one, and will unashamedly continue to do it so long as I fly domestic. As I repeat the frequency back this way, it's way easier to lodge it into my brain until I dial it in if the same call/readback includes other numbers.

[BARKINGMAD]

British Charter Airline. SOP was for PM to announce "1green", or "5green" when the commanded and selected flap indication was achieved. Some prat in the training dept decided there was too much "chatter", therefore the call was written out of the script of our play. Guess what, after 2 separate potentially nasty incidents soon after, the call was reinstated.

EU major charter airline. We use to say "1 to go" at the appropriate stage in climb & descent. Simple, 3 syllables in a busy verbal environment did the trick. Then some wally with more authority than experience decided this season's call had to be "One thousand feet to level-off". 8 syllables where 3 formerly sufficed. WHY??!!

Training captains please note, you are NOT a new senior officer in the military, "marking your territory" by changing the way things are done just to impose your (unearned) authority! You are there to change things only where needed as proved by an incident meriting such change or when directed by the xAA who is supervising your operation. The stories of pedantic trainers annoying just about everyone with whom they have operated a 'frame with nitpicking stupidity, then failing to cope with the most mundane events is indicative of a species which should be eliminated by assertive culling by switched-on and alert informed flight management.

But then this latter breed seems to have been supplanted by the army of bean-counters and greasy-pole climbers who now inhabit the office.

[Pugilistic Animus]

I'm calling myself out guilty of this one, and will unashamedly continue to do it so long as I fly domestic. As I repeat the frequency back this way, it's way easier to lodge it into my brain until I dial it in if the same call/readback includes other numbers.

I think every US pilot is guilty of that for the reasons that you state

[Brian W May]

British Charter Airline. SOP was for PM to announce "1green", or "5green" when the commanded and selected flap indication was achieved. Some prat in the training dept decided there was too much "chatter", therefore the call was written out of the script of our play. Guess what, after 2 separate potentially nasty incidents soon after, the call was reinstated.

EU major charter airline. We use to say "1 to go" at the appropriate stage in climb & descent. Simple, 3 syllables in a busy verbal environment did the trick. Then some wally with more authority than experience decided this season's call had to be "One thousand feet to level-off". 8 syllables where 3 formerly sufficed. WHY??!!

Training captains please note, you are NOT a new senior officer in the military, "marking your territory" by changing the way things are done just to impose your (unearned) authority! You are there to change things only where needed as proved by an incident meriting such change or when directed by the xAA who is supervising your operation. The stories of pedantic trainers annoying just about everyone with whom they have operated a 'frame with nitpicking stupidity, then failing to cope with the most mundane events is indicative of a species which should be eliminated by assertive culling by switched-on and alert informed flight management.

But then this latter breed seems to have been supplanted by the army of bean-counters and greasy-pole climbers who now inhabit the office.

Well said . . . that about covers it. Commonsense isn't.

[ChinaBeached]

I think we all agree that nitpicking the petty is more detrimental than good. It can become a pecker measuring contest as to who can regurgitate the most.

However, I still go back to the WHY. Back in the late 80’s & early 90’s the NYC subway crime rate was reduced dramatically by looking at the bigger picture. They re-assessed going after the muggers, vandals & assault assailants & focused on the fare dodgers. The ones jumping the turnstiles, etc. The psychology behind it was that the TYPE of person who’d commit petty crime was also the TYPE who’d potentially be guilty of other crimes. It worked. They also removed all evidence of graffiti nightly so the crime wasn’t visiable & thus setting a culture of it being stopped before it spread. After all, the graffiti vandals want notoriety for their actions so they stopped it.

So a pilot who can’t / won’t / unable to follow SOPs may also have the traits contributing to potential worse lapses of procedure. My experience of a guy refusing to follow basic checklist protocols and then having some hairbrained completely off the chart RTO philosophy proves a point.

The same type of intstructor who obsesses over getting the lights & seat belt signs on before performing an emergency descent would also force questions to be asked about his traits as an instructor.

Lastly, and well pointed out above, for the life of me I cannot fathom why crews often deliberately breach SOPs & therefore leave themselves open to liability in the event of an incident or accident. The insurance companies, lawyers & bean counters will persistantly & aggressively hunt for ANY way to attribute blame elsewhere & avoid financial penalty. SOP non compliance an easy target if related. Why do it to yourself?

Common sense & airmanship. Two traits fast becoming a rarity.

[A Squared]

Back in the late 80’s & early 90’s the NYC subway crime rate was reduced dramatically by looking at the bigger picture. They re-assessed going after the muggers, vandals & assault assailants & focused on the fare dodgers. The ones jumping the turnstiles, etc. The psychology behind it was that the TYPE of person who’d commit petty crime was also the TYPE who’d potentially be guilty of other crimes. It worked. They also removed all evidence of graffiti nightly so the crime wasn’t visiable & thus setting a culture of it being stopped before it spread. After all, the graffiti vandals want notoriety for their actions so they stopped it.

Well, that's one theory, anyway. It's a long way from established fact, though. The program in the subways was a part of Mayor Guliani's more encompassing "Broken Windows" strategy of policing that extended beyond the transit system to the entire city. Yes, there was a decrease in crime in the time period the policies were implemented. But, as most people understand, correlation is not the same as causation. There were other socioeconomic factors during that same time period which also may have been responsible. More to the point, other locations far from New York *also* saw significant decreases in crime during that same time period. Serious crime in the US generally, was declining during that time period. Yes, some people believe that the broken window strategy was responsible for reducing crime. Obviously, an politician is going to point at something like that and claim credit. However it is also true that there's a bunch of criminologists who disagree, that the decline was due to a combination of other factors. Point being, it's a long way from established fact, amongst people who study that sort of thing.

[DooblerChina]

Great thread by the way...

This is one of my annoyances, I couldn’t agree more that the big picture can get lost by some trainers however in my airline, that thankfully seems to be in the minority now.

Regarding SOP’s and non standard RT, I reckon I was in that band of ‘I’m too cool to need perfect calls’ 6 or 7 years ago and got pulled up by a good friend who also happened to be a trainer.

His argument was our standard calls are one page long, It’s not difficult to just use them every time, not using them religiously made me look lazy and gash rather than ‘cool.

I was looking at a command and thankfully I got the message and started being completely standard and guess what... within a week, it was easy!!

Now I am i the left seat, I totally get it... last week I flew with an FO who recently joined from another airline, where it seems that every time something is asked for, it is repeated from the other seat. Nothing particularly wrong with that I suppose.... unless it’s not something that is standard now at our airline.

On departure, I asked for gear up... when FO replies gear up... something I have never heard repeated, it confused me... then when I asked for flaps 1... you guessed it, i heard flaps1. I immediately thought something was wrong and a short conversation was had at 1000’. not the ideal time.

I questioned why this was happeneing a little later, and the reason was that he used to do it in the last airline... and no one had ever mentioned it. He left 18
months ago!!!

To me me that is not good, not only has the person not been bothered to get the calls correctly but no one has questioned it in the last 18 months.

Both parties are at fault for this, and now as a Captain, I feel obliged to correct (at the right time and in a polite suggestive manor) SOP deficiencies. If nothing else, when that person comes up for a command, it will be picked up.

Just my thoughts......

[pineteam]

For me, good standard communication is like good spelling when writing . Surely 99% of the time we can understand each other when we make mistakes but isn't it more pleasant when it's perfectly well written?:) Btw, I know my english is not always spot on but it's not intentional.:}

[ChinaBeached]

A-Squared:
A fair point. Malcom Gladwell wrote about this extensively in The Tipping Point but I agree that is only one theory & angle to it.

My opinions are perhaps biased by experience. I find the “type” of pilot turing up at the sim or regular line flight unshaven, barely ironed shirt & looking like he just rolled out of bed (despite the 2 day rostered days off before the sim) is the same “type” more prevalent to those behaviour traits we’re discussing. Again - just my opinion & experience. (For the record, having your hair immaculate & a closer than close shave does not guarantee a good pilot either, but I find a person who does the small things right often has the same discipline for the other far more important SOPs).

[flyby797]

I think that it all comes from the company doctrine and the ones entitled to promote it: captains but mostly TRI and TRE. When on a line check or sim ride, you do an error regarding SOPs or scans or communications, and you are not corrected by the instructor, then for you it is NOT anymore an error, it becomes a standard procedure. It is called the normalization of deviance defined as “The gradual process through which unacceptable practices or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organization.”, source : “The Challenger Launch Decision”, Dr. Diane Vaughan. In my opinion it all comes down to that.