Escalation of verbal communication between pilots
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 39
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Escalation of verbal communication between pilots
I (as a mere PPL holder) was curious to learn how the verbal communication between pilots in a multi-crew environment escalates when things begin to get out of shape.
For instance (just a simple scenario), a 737 positioned roughly downwind, cleared for a visual approach. Let's say the First Officer is PF.
At the point where one should normally expect to take flap (I'm not sure where this is in a 737 so apologies!) the PF doesn't do so and just continues along. What might the Captain say to get the FO to do something about it? Would the first stage just be a gentle nudge like "I would normally take flap 1 at this point"? Then say the FO responds with "I think we're ok for now" and still doesn't do anything. What is the next stage?
I imagine there must be some framework which is taught (is this CRM?) along the lines of the 1st stage: 'suggest', 2nd stage: 'tell', 3rd stage take control?
Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity.
For instance (just a simple scenario), a 737 positioned roughly downwind, cleared for a visual approach. Let's say the First Officer is PF.
At the point where one should normally expect to take flap (I'm not sure where this is in a 737 so apologies!) the PF doesn't do so and just continues along. What might the Captain say to get the FO to do something about it? Would the first stage just be a gentle nudge like "I would normally take flap 1 at this point"? Then say the FO responds with "I think we're ok for now" and still doesn't do anything. What is the next stage?
I imagine there must be some framework which is taught (is this CRM?) along the lines of the 1st stage: 'suggest', 2nd stage: 'tell', 3rd stage take control?
Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity.
Buttonpusher
It is as you state, for me suggest, tell then finally (but reluctantly) take control.
Some pilots are more nervous than others and get to the "I have control" part a lot quicker !
I try to let F/O's figure it out and hence learn that is until I start sucking up my seat then it time to do something.
Reality is most F/O's are damn good flyers.
Some pilots are more nervous than others and get to the "I have control" part a lot quicker !
I try to let F/O's figure it out and hence learn that is until I start sucking up my seat then it time to do something.
Reality is most F/O's are damn good flyers.
"I would normally take flap 1 at this point"?
Much of what you ask is written down in SOPs - e.g. F1 200 kts no later than 10 miles out so it's not so much a question of "I would normally...etc" rather (at say 12 miles) - "approaching ten miles we need to select Flap 1". Also these "gates" are limits and not targets - the Captain is at liberty (and indeed is obliged) to apply more stringent limits should he/she deem necessary.
It's highly likely in this scenario that the FO (or it could be the Captain if he is PF) lacks "Situational Awareness", often due to task saturation.
Then say the FO responds with "I think we're ok for now"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 39
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you both for your replies. I didn't realise that much of the basic flying is in SOPs, making my example somewhat unrealistic - I think you got the gist of what I was asking though. :-)
What about the Captain who wants to continue below DH without the required visual references? (Again, this may not even be a remote possibility in the age of SOPs, if so I apologise now!)
In my head it might go something like this?
F/O: "Approaching DH, not visual"
Captain: "Oh, let's just go another 100 feet and see what happens..."
F/O: "Captain, you MUST go around"...... "I have control."
With use of positive/assertive language, ie address him as 'Captain' and emphasis on the word 'MUST'..
What about the Captain who wants to continue below DH without the required visual references? (Again, this may not even be a remote possibility in the age of SOPs, if so I apologise now!)
In my head it might go something like this?
F/O: "Approaching DH, not visual"
Captain: "Oh, let's just go another 100 feet and see what happens..."
F/O: "Captain, you MUST go around"...... "I have control."
With use of positive/assertive language, ie address him as 'Captain' and emphasis on the word 'MUST'..
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
curiosity killed the cat...satisfaction brought him back
in your last scenario, going below DH without visual cues, all the non flying pilot has to say is:
if you go one foot lower I'll report you and I will move up one seniority number.
by the way, at DH if the pilot(s) see the sequenced flashers only, they are allowed to continue to touchdown zone elevation plus 100'.
The instrument approach at virtually every decent airline is well orchestrated, choreographed and things rarely go wrong
But if the captain went below minimums and was not responding to the first officer, the first officer must ascertain if the captain is incapacitated, and if so, take control.
we call it the 2 communication rule...captain, you are too low, captain you are too low, I am taking the plane
this happens pretty darn fast
you have interesting questions, besides curiosity, what is YOUR REAL reason for asking
in your last scenario, going below DH without visual cues, all the non flying pilot has to say is:
if you go one foot lower I'll report you and I will move up one seniority number.
by the way, at DH if the pilot(s) see the sequenced flashers only, they are allowed to continue to touchdown zone elevation plus 100'.
The instrument approach at virtually every decent airline is well orchestrated, choreographed and things rarely go wrong
But if the captain went below minimums and was not responding to the first officer, the first officer must ascertain if the captain is incapacitated, and if so, take control.
we call it the 2 communication rule...captain, you are too low, captain you are too low, I am taking the plane
this happens pretty darn fast
you have interesting questions, besides curiosity, what is YOUR REAL reason for asking
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 39
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flarepilot, thank you for your reply.
I've been interested in aviation ever since we lived in the US for 2 years in the early 90s. My best friend's Dad over there was a First Officer with US Air. He even arranged for my Dad and I to spend a few hours in a 737 sim at Charlotte Douglas. Those were the days!
So in answer to your question, I'm just genuinely interested to know how it all works. What's that for? Why's that done? No axe to grind or ulterior motive.
I have plenty more questions where these came from!
I've been interested in aviation ever since we lived in the US for 2 years in the early 90s. My best friend's Dad over there was a First Officer with US Air. He even arranged for my Dad and I to spend a few hours in a 737 sim at Charlotte Douglas. Those were the days!
So in answer to your question, I'm just genuinely interested to know how it all works. What's that for? Why's that done? No axe to grind or ulterior motive.
I have plenty more questions where these came from!
Also there is a whole science around aerodrome operating minima.
Simply put if you have the required visibility for the type of approach which you are making it is highly probable that you will have the required visual reference at Decision Height.
Many airlines now use the monitored approach system when weather is below certain values. The First Officer flies the approach whilst the Captain looks for visual reference and takes over if/when he/she has the required visual reference and lands the aircraft. If at DH the Captain has not taken over control the FO automatically performs a Go Around (hence the FO is known as "The Go Around Man/Lady". Hence the scenario you pose would never happen.
Simply put if you have the required visibility for the type of approach which you are making it is highly probable that you will have the required visual reference at Decision Height.
Many airlines now use the monitored approach system when weather is below certain values. The First Officer flies the approach whilst the Captain looks for visual reference and takes over if/when he/she has the required visual reference and lands the aircraft. If at DH the Captain has not taken over control the FO automatically performs a Go Around (hence the FO is known as "The Go Around Man/Lady". Hence the scenario you pose would never happen.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, monitored approaches, while being not a bad system at all, are still only used by very few airlines. Most do not use them. Or treat the autopilot as the pilot flying and the PF as the monitoring pilot who either takes over or presses the TOGA buttons.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A classic example of DISTRACTION to all you real prof pilots out there!
The OP referred to a VISUAL APPROACH
Very soon we're into discussions on MDAs etc.
One would hope that a visual approach would have been briefed and reviewed before the pattern was entered?
My experience has been most rhs occupants were not even aware of the lateral spacing from the rwy threshold, and intended to enter the pattern at a spacing which meant that ENERGY MANAGEMENT would subsequently be a test-flying exercise!
Visual approaches,when properly briefed and flown are great for handling and confidence building, but when suddenly adopted as a means of getting to the runway, avoiding the smoking hole and avoiding the FDM playback in the office, usually end up as a botchup.
SOP callouts are essential to rescuing a deteriorating EM situation, but hopefully the sensible crew will have used their experience to avoid having to call on their superior skills etc to avoid the inevitable?
The OP referred to a VISUAL APPROACH
Very soon we're into discussions on MDAs etc.
One would hope that a visual approach would have been briefed and reviewed before the pattern was entered?
My experience has been most rhs occupants were not even aware of the lateral spacing from the rwy threshold, and intended to enter the pattern at a spacing which meant that ENERGY MANAGEMENT would subsequently be a test-flying exercise!
Visual approaches,when properly briefed and flown are great for handling and confidence building, but when suddenly adopted as a means of getting to the runway, avoiding the smoking hole and avoiding the FDM playback in the office, usually end up as a botchup.
SOP callouts are essential to rescuing a deteriorating EM situation, but hopefully the sensible crew will have used their experience to avoid having to call on their superior skills etc to avoid the inevitable?
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: dunno
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on the situation and the captain. Some captains will extend the flaps without discussing it first when he sees it appropriate but 95% are much more relaxed and more CRM-minded and actually lets the FO screw up and learn something, just monitoring things to keep it safe.
The world will not end after all if you cannot get stable by the gate and go around, actually making a go around can be good from time to time. In my company a rough estimate is one GA per 1000h flown per pilot and it is often a skill that gets rustier than other routine stuff such as visuals for example, GA is a life saving maneouvre while visuals mostly are for fun and saving fuel.
Most good captains here stay somewhat passive and let the FO develop and make mistakes as long as it is safe. However when things are more safety threatening beating around the bush is not very productive. Keeping a brief and clear "I think we are much better off..." "Let's stick with the SOP and..." "No need to be a cowboy let's..." etc is needed, there are situations where sweet talking can aggrevate situations
The world will not end after all if you cannot get stable by the gate and go around, actually making a go around can be good from time to time. In my company a rough estimate is one GA per 1000h flown per pilot and it is often a skill that gets rustier than other routine stuff such as visuals for example, GA is a life saving maneouvre while visuals mostly are for fun and saving fuel.
Most good captains here stay somewhat passive and let the FO develop and make mistakes as long as it is safe. However when things are more safety threatening beating around the bush is not very productive. Keeping a brief and clear "I think we are much better off..." "Let's stick with the SOP and..." "No need to be a cowboy let's..." etc is needed, there are situations where sweet talking can aggrevate situations
BarkingMad,
Maybe because the OP then posted subsequently:-
A classic example of DISTRACTION to all you real prof pilots out there!
The OP referred to a VISUAL APPROACH
Very soon we're into discussions on MDAs etc.
The OP referred to a VISUAL APPROACH
Very soon we're into discussions on MDAs etc.
What about the Captain who wants to continue below DH without the required visual references? (Again, this may not even be a remote possibility in the age of SOPs, if so I apologise now!)
In my head it might go something like this?
F/O: "Approaching DH, not visual"
Captain: "Oh, let's just go another 100 feet and see what happens..."
F/O: "Captain, you MUST go around"...... "I have control."
In my head it might go something like this?
F/O: "Approaching DH, not visual"
Captain: "Oh, let's just go another 100 feet and see what happens..."
F/O: "Captain, you MUST go around"...... "I have control."
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: texas
Age: 86
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Flying (PF), would call for the flaps and theier position, then call for the landing check list. Normally done on a non precision approach, 3 nm prior to the FAF. On the precision, 1.5 dots below the glide path. Visual pattern, one nm out from final. Good luck.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firefly, correct, l only read and replied to the first posting. Mea culpa!
However, if l may add a question regarding the proliferation of verbal garbage in the modern flight deck;
Who's bright idea was it to change the call "one to go" to the verbose "one thousand feet to level off"???!
From three syllables to eight in one fell swoop defies logic. I trust it didn't originate from west of 30 West, the birthplace of yuckspeak, though such changes to a company's OM are very often credited to the manufacturer.
However, if l may add a question regarding the proliferation of verbal garbage in the modern flight deck;
Who's bright idea was it to change the call "one to go" to the verbose "one thousand feet to level off"???!
From three syllables to eight in one fell swoop defies logic. I trust it didn't originate from west of 30 West, the birthplace of yuckspeak, though such changes to a company's OM are very often credited to the manufacturer.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK019, for many years I was under the mistaken impression that UK CAA FOIs were using the Big UK CAA Book on How To Fly Your Airbus/Boeing when they laid down the law to their particular airlines.
Then I was told it all depended on what had frightened them at some stage in their line careers and there was no master reference work, even though what they were saying, on occasions, countermanded the manufacturers manual on "how to do it".
Somewhere around this time I departed for my current location..................
Then I was told it all depended on what had frightened them at some stage in their line careers and there was no master reference work, even though what they were saying, on occasions, countermanded the manufacturers manual on "how to do it".
Somewhere around this time I departed for my current location..................
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, BARKINGMAD, you are spot on - the same fellow insisted on one procedure which was directly opposite to the manufacturer's because it was the method employed in his previous airline...
To be fair, our current FOI could not really be more helpful - and nowadays everything has to go through a risk-assessment so there's not much room for private foibles. Plus the CAA seems to be haemorrhaging staff since EASA, and the ones remaining are utterly maxed.
So you can come back now, the coast is clear
To be fair, our current FOI could not really be more helpful - and nowadays everything has to go through a risk-assessment so there's not much room for private foibles. Plus the CAA seems to be haemorrhaging staff since EASA, and the ones remaining are utterly maxed.
So you can come back now, the coast is clear
