Obviously it's about the type. Someone piloting a big boeing that has the speed tape and limitations all woven into a neat little instrument, will have no use of a callout of the new speed. An an old thing like the SF340 requires some talking to get it right. The Vref's vary with the weight and there's no way of knowing all the speeds by heart. And the bugs don't bug them selves so we have to do it ourselves. PF is not going to look down and try to read the fineprint of the speedbooklet at that time so someone is going to have to tell him the speeds. And I think anyone will agree that it's good use of the PNF to do this whilst the PF is flying the plane.

Of course it's a good idea to keep callouts and such, as few as possible. But some of the callouts are absolutely vital. Basically anything to do with configuration. I know someone will bring up the GPWS (too low flap, too low gear), but I see these as the last wall of defense. The planes are individuals and they need to be treated as such. It's a very bad idea to fly an ATR the same way you fly an Airbus for example.

Regards/ LnS

With all this yakking you can miss the important stuff.

Routine configuration / speed changes changes and similar should be handled simply as that, with no further word necessary.

Save the extraneous comments for when something is not working correctly.

Someone called it the quiet dark cockpit, as it should be.

Minimum yakking...
 

I fully agree with the idea of minimum verbiage and theatricals in the flight deck. As I am constantly involved with training, I do a lot of comparison with other procedures and SOPs with other air carriers, yet same type of aircraft and using the original Boeing QRH and AOMs...
xxx
True, my airline is strictly adhering to Boeing procedures, and this in the English language. The fact that the crews' language is not English, probably helps us to reduce the amount of words in SOPs.
xxx
I remember my old PanAm days, as a F/E and F/O on 707s and 727s... we had a "Shakespearean" captain native of Oxford who indulged on using words as "undercarriage"... we were in an old 707-321, taking off with 30 flaps. His next call should have been "Flaps 20" (we said "twenny" in the "Colonies").
Well, he called for "Flaps two-zeero"...
The F/O moved flaps handle to "0" and confirmed "Flaps moving to 0"... :D
Nothing much was said for the rest of the Atlantic crossing...
xxx
Had another situation, recently, in a 747 simulator.
Engine fire drills practice, nº 3 fire warning... F/E called "engine fire nº 4"
Our SOPs specify that the call is "engine fire" NOT specifying "which engine"...
Engine failures require the same procedures, until the call for the check list, at 1,000 AGL, after flaps retraction.
All that extra yakyak can create problems...
xxx
Another simulator situation... Before takeoff briefing...
Most of the time, we merely say "standard briefing" when circumstances are standard. We know darned well what we do prior to V1 or after V1 regarding engine failures or fires... One of the captains gave us a briefing that took some 45 seconds, if not 1 minute...
So, at the end of the session, I requested the left seat for "personal practice" and gave a briefing that was similar to a Vatican high mass in Latin. And I briefed that I would "continue the takeoff" for engine fire/failure prior to V1 and "abort the takeoff if fire/failure after v1...
Nobody noticed or told me "say that again"... :E
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

Talking about talking. Recently was astounded by the number of read and do checklist items in the Metro 227. While the number of spoken checks depend on the operator, the following is a bit overboard? This from an Australian operator of Metro aircraft.

83 challenge and response up to point of starting engines.
24 challenge and response after start drills.
19 challenge and response between after start complete and airborne.
11 challenge and response after take off checks.
11 challenge and response climb to cruise checks.
31 challenge and response from top of descent to touch down.
10 challenge and response after landing checks.
Total 189 challenge and response with many more to come for shut down checks.

Compare that little lot to the Boeing 737 manufacturer's recommended checklist of 42 challenge and response items from before start to shut down. Do more checks mean a safer operation?

Crikey! Challenge and response is a good thing when it comes to things such as fuel cocks to off when airborne, but I mean, what is there to challenge and respond to during the parking checklist?

I have to summarize my SOP and see if it's as alarming as your metro stuff...
/LnS