Fly-By-Mouth, the new CRM?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A37575/411A/Centaurus,
I concur.
Dani,
I am assuming you fly the Nintendo.I can understand why you feel the need to rattle on as youre never quite sure what the damn things going to do next.You have my sympathies sir.
I concur.
Dani,
I am assuming you fly the Nintendo.I can understand why you feel the need to rattle on as youre never quite sure what the damn things going to do next.You have my sympathies sir.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most useless type of call is one which requires no conscious thought by the speaker, as in “confirmed” or merely parroting what the other crew member has said. These were eliminated in the 1980s in my airline.
Too often, however, I've heard crewmembers rattle off something merely because it's on the checklist. "Considered."
Well, after you got done considering it, what did you decide to do, and when are you planning on sharing it with the rest of us?
The most useful product of standardized calls and checks I've found is when I have caught myself thinking aloud, "Damn, how did I miss that?", to be followed up by another crewmember replying "that's why we have a checklist and three of us." It may be a small thing, but again, there's a reason certain items have more than one call, certain items require confirmation, certain items are included in a checklist and a procedure.
No, it doesn't enhance safety one iota when the calls are made with complete disregard to actual conditions. Clearly a "stable" call at 500' when the aircraft is well outside the published parameters is not only in error, but dangerous...and an outright lie. However, clearly that wasn't a standard call...because it didn't match the situation, and the standard call is required to describe the actual situation (we don't call the FAF over the MAP...we call it over the FAF, and we don't call "stable"--or whatever the standard call for a given operator may be--if we're not stable). Accordingly, an example of a "stable" call when the aircraft isn't stable doesn't condemn standardization or standard calls and procedures...just the pilot who makes the call in error.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Quote from Denti:
Of course there are callouts and checks that are necessary and have to be done. For example the finger-pointing procedure (PF sets cleared ALT and points at it until PM says "checked")...
[Unquote]
Almost a completely wasted call, in my opinion. The "PM" would neither have to look or think. Monitoring is thinking. Evidence of thought proves awareness. You have wasted two-thirds of an opportunity. And pointing is time-wasting, as well as temporarily preventing the hand from performing another task (like flying the aeroplane).
Of course there are callouts and checks that are necessary and have to be done. For example the finger-pointing procedure (PF sets cleared ALT and points at it until PM says "checked")...
[Unquote]
Almost a completely wasted call, in my opinion. The "PM" would neither have to look or think. Monitoring is thinking. Evidence of thought proves awareness. You have wasted two-thirds of an opportunity. And pointing is time-wasting, as well as temporarily preventing the hand from performing another task (like flying the aeroplane).
It is probably the last remainder we have from having been a BA company at one time (long long ago now), they forced it on us that way, however it actually works. From my observation colleagues do not reply without checking, rather they omit the reply if they dont have a look at the selection done by the other (which can be annoying since you have to keep your finger there until they do). It often enough happens that there is not the usual "checked" but rather a "umm, didn't he say something else?" in which case we get a confirmation from ATC of course.
Reading back the cleared altitude would probably be better, but im not so sure there either as i listen to the clearance as well and can just reply whatever i heard which of course is nothing but the same crosscheck we do by checking and talking up if the dialed in value isn't correct. In the end if someone doesn't do his job i will fly solo at some point, and there is not much that can prevent that, not even endless talking (of course, reporting systems help there).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if the PF is handflying he of course doesn't dial in the altitude cleared and doesn't point to it, its the PM in that case while the PF replies.
However, make selections on the FMS while hand-flying?
Yup, done all the time (and for a very long time) at some companies.
Some airlines actually train pilots how to fly the airplane, not spout verbal nonsense....endlessly.
I really do have to laugh at some of the younger guys...they are relatively new, yet, seem to 'know all about it'...according to ....them.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, done all the time (and for a very long time) at some companies.
Aviators didn't wear parachutes or seatbelts in open cockpit aerobatic airplanes for some time. Didn't make it right. CRM was non-existant for a very long time. Didn't make it right. Many of the safety enhancements and practices we follow today, from avoiding landing under thunderstorms to fuel reserves to the use of automation came as the result of bloodshed and loff of property and lives. Simply because "that's the way it was done" doesn't mean that's the way we should keep doing it.
Yes, most of us have flown single pilot IFR a little or a lot, certainly with a MUCH higher workload than any of us have now in a multi-crewed cockpit. However, simply because we once did it all ourselves and could do so again in a pinch, doesn't mean we should.
I'm not new in the business myself...but I whole heartedly endorse standardization...including verbal callouts. I've no doubt based on my own experience that they save lives.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy
As required" ...These really mean nothing
It should never be a 'meaningless check'.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proper check-list responses
As stated above for "AS REQUIRED" -
In my company, we specify that, when a SWITCH (or handle) is to be positioned, the name PRINTED ON THAT POSITION be specified when answering a check list... i.e. words such as ARM, BOTH, LOW, HIGH, PRI or SEC. It is not always "ON or OFF"...
xxx
For landing as an example, in my 747 Classic, to the challenge "AUTO BRAKES" - the answer might be OFF, MIN, MED or MAX... The answer could not be "ON"...
Happy contrails
In my company, we specify that, when a SWITCH (or handle) is to be positioned, the name PRINTED ON THAT POSITION be specified when answering a check list... i.e. words such as ARM, BOTH, LOW, HIGH, PRI or SEC. It is not always "ON or OFF"...
xxx
For landing as an example, in my 747 Classic, to the challenge "AUTO BRAKES" - the answer might be OFF, MIN, MED or MAX... The answer could not be "ON"...
Happy contrails
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- then I respectfully suggest your airline is doing that particular check incorrectly. For DECADES now, "As required" has required a response to indicate what is set - ie 'required', as in the Boeing 'Park Brake ....As required' = ON or OFF.
It should never be a 'meaningless check'.
It should never be a 'meaningless check'.
"As Required" is not a proper response. In the case of the example you give, the parking brake might be applied or released, depending on whether we're being pushed back at engine start, or have already been pushed. The position of the park brake is certainly as required but the response should never be "As Required."
When "Parking Brake" is read aloud, the proper response is "Set and Normal," requring the same verbal response from each crew member in turn. If the brake is released then the proper response is "Released and Normal," signifying the status of the brake, verified by the handle position, the annunciator on the forward caution panel, and the brake pressure gauge on the first officer's panel.
"As Required" doesn't mean a thing. It may be on your particular checklist...it's not on mine with the same product...and even if it were, I'd still take the time to point to the brake, the light, and the pressure indicator anyway. "As Required" tells me nothing.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote by Rananim:
You assume wrongly. I flew all kinds of airliners. That's why I have maybe a bit of a broader view than you. Maybe when you get hand on a newer aircraft type, you will also enjoy the advantages of modern CRM - maybe not, forget it. You are part of a dying out bread.
BTW, there is a great number of airlines in Europe and in the US who have "silent procedures" on the Airbus. Still, this doesn't mean you don't do cross checks and don't talk anymore in the cockpit.
Dani
Dani,
I am assuming you fly the Nintendo.
I am assuming you fly the Nintendo.
BTW, there is a great number of airlines in Europe and in the US who have "silent procedures" on the Airbus. Still, this doesn't mean you don't do cross checks and don't talk anymore in the cockpit.
Dani
Standard Calls Philosophy
Quote from Denti [Yesterday, 21:16]:
Well, if the PF is handflying he of course doesn't dial in the altitude cleared and doesn't point to it, its the PM in that case while the PF replies.
[Unquote]
Glad you mentioned that. That’s why I deliberately avoided using “PF” and “PNF” (or “PM”) in my post. But we understand each other. Thanks for your calm response − fly with you any time…
Quote (2) from Denti:
It is probably the last remainder we have from having been a BA company at one time (long long ago now), they forced it on us that way, however it actually works. From my observation colleagues do not reply without checking, rather they omit the reply if they dont have a look at the selection done by the other (which can be annoying since you have to keep your finger there until they do). It often enough happens that there is not the usual "checked" but rather a "umm, didn't he say something else?" in which case we get a confirmation from ATC of course.
// Reading back the cleared altitude would probably be better, but im not so sure there either as i listen to the clearance as well and can just reply whatever i heard which of course is nothing but the same crosscheck we do by checking and talking up if the dialed in value isn't correct. In the end if someone doesn't do his job i will fly solo at some point…
[Unquote]
Am wondering if your long-departed BA trainers may not have explained the basic philosophy very well. The idea is that an ACTION or verbal PROMPT by the first pilot leads to a crosscheck and response (often delayed by other contingencies) from the second pilot. A prompt must not merely spoonfeed the response: a thought process must be required. If not, the response is nothing more than a worthless kneejerk.
Ultimately, of course, we rely on the professionalism (integrity) of anyone saying anything in a cockpit. If the responding pilot chooses merely to parrot the altitude he has just heard ATC give; instead of reading what he sees on the PFD/ADI display, or FCU altitude window (in either case, AFTER the setting pilot has removed his/her hand from the setting knob) − then that person should not be occupying a multi-crew cockpit.
In the case of the first pilot setting a new altitude on the FCU, this is an ACTION-prompt that would almost invariably follow immediately after an ATC clearance. No verbal or visual prompt should be necessary. If the second pilot is busy with another task (e.g., follow-up ATC call) his response-call will be delayed. The first pilot is well aware of this, and will continue duties − not nag the second pilot into a hurried response by pointing, or whatever. In due course, the second pilot will make his call. If he forgets, the first pilot can choose a quiet moment to make a verbal prompt. This must not spoonfeed the response. Something like “Check set altitude?” (or merely “FMA check?” on an A320) will do the job.
Chris
Well, if the PF is handflying he of course doesn't dial in the altitude cleared and doesn't point to it, its the PM in that case while the PF replies.
[Unquote]
Glad you mentioned that. That’s why I deliberately avoided using “PF” and “PNF” (or “PM”) in my post. But we understand each other. Thanks for your calm response − fly with you any time…
Quote (2) from Denti:
It is probably the last remainder we have from having been a BA company at one time (long long ago now), they forced it on us that way, however it actually works. From my observation colleagues do not reply without checking, rather they omit the reply if they dont have a look at the selection done by the other (which can be annoying since you have to keep your finger there until they do). It often enough happens that there is not the usual "checked" but rather a "umm, didn't he say something else?" in which case we get a confirmation from ATC of course.
// Reading back the cleared altitude would probably be better, but im not so sure there either as i listen to the clearance as well and can just reply whatever i heard which of course is nothing but the same crosscheck we do by checking and talking up if the dialed in value isn't correct. In the end if someone doesn't do his job i will fly solo at some point…
[Unquote]
Am wondering if your long-departed BA trainers may not have explained the basic philosophy very well. The idea is that an ACTION or verbal PROMPT by the first pilot leads to a crosscheck and response (often delayed by other contingencies) from the second pilot. A prompt must not merely spoonfeed the response: a thought process must be required. If not, the response is nothing more than a worthless kneejerk.
Ultimately, of course, we rely on the professionalism (integrity) of anyone saying anything in a cockpit. If the responding pilot chooses merely to parrot the altitude he has just heard ATC give; instead of reading what he sees on the PFD/ADI display, or FCU altitude window (in either case, AFTER the setting pilot has removed his/her hand from the setting knob) − then that person should not be occupying a multi-crew cockpit.
In the case of the first pilot setting a new altitude on the FCU, this is an ACTION-prompt that would almost invariably follow immediately after an ATC clearance. No verbal or visual prompt should be necessary. If the second pilot is busy with another task (e.g., follow-up ATC call) his response-call will be delayed. The first pilot is well aware of this, and will continue duties − not nag the second pilot into a hurried response by pointing, or whatever. In due course, the second pilot will make his call. If he forgets, the first pilot can choose a quiet moment to make a verbal prompt. This must not spoonfeed the response. Something like “Check set altitude?” (or merely “FMA check?” on an A320) will do the job.
Chris
Last edited by Chris Scott; 10th Sep 2008 at 11:09. Reason: Minor clarification in penultimate para.
BelArgUSA
Hi BelArgUSA,
Agree with your point.
Please excuse OFF-TOPIC: Have tried several times to reply to a great PM you sent me months ago. No joy
. Is there a problem with your PMs? I know PA was also trying to contact you recently, also unsuccessfully.
Agree with your point.
Please excuse OFF-TOPIC: Have tried several times to reply to a great PM you sent me months ago. No joy
. Is there a problem with your PMs? I know PA was also trying to contact you recently, also unsuccessfully.
Quote:
"Please do not speak to, or distract the driver, unless in case of emergency". Good advice.
[Unquote]
Used to fly with a guy like that on Daks. He once nearly landed a friend of mine on the South Park at LGW. Used to wear his medal ribbons deliberately when we flew the morning newspapers to Hanover...
[Many of the othe ex-WW2 pilots were superb communicators.]
"Please do not speak to, or distract the driver, unless in case of emergency". Good advice.
[Unquote]
Used to fly with a guy like that on Daks. He once nearly landed a friend of mine on the South Park at LGW. Used to wear his medal ribbons deliberately when we flew the morning newspapers to Hanover...
[Many of the othe ex-WW2 pilots were superb communicators.]
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Altough modern cockpit technology have increased the accuracy of flying, it has also increased the the workload in the cockpit
Intelligent use of basic navigation techniques including the RMI needles and a DME, become an essential cross check fall back in terminal areas. The Cali accident was avoidable if the crew had simply tuned the required navaids in front of them and simply pointed the aircraft in the right direction rather than go heads down pressing buttons to get Lnav track.
Like the Cali accident,the Thai International A310 crash at Kathmandu was directly due to poor airmanship (pilot error) where the captain and first officer basically had not the foggiest idea of the true position of their aircraft after circling aimlessly both pilots heads down in high country without cross-checking with basic navaids such as VOR and NDB and DME. The increased workload mentioned above is purely pilot induced and manufacturer's recommendations fatally ignored.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TM, in the end it's always pilot error. The matter of the fact is that those pilots didn't know their position anymore because they completly relied on modern cockpit automation and had no clue about safe procedures and modern CRM. And this is exactly what we discuss here!
I can see where the arguments arise, as there seems to be a full spectrum of SOPs from calling out every trivial change to "shut up and get on with it!".
Probably there is some neutral ground somewhere in the middle. I don't have a big issue with our SOPs which are to mostly only call exceptions on FMAs, i.e. modes which appear to be unusual/wrong for the phase of flight. We also call any MCP changes to keep the other pilot in the loop and hopefully trap some potential errors. I don't like incessant reading out of redundant information but at the same time find complete silence a bit creepy and it doesn't help with spotting subtle incapacitation, either.
It all goes to show that the human interface in modern airliners is still pretty crap. There's much better in the GA world and even in cars...
Probably there is some neutral ground somewhere in the middle. I don't have a big issue with our SOPs which are to mostly only call exceptions on FMAs, i.e. modes which appear to be unusual/wrong for the phase of flight. We also call any MCP changes to keep the other pilot in the loop and hopefully trap some potential errors. I don't like incessant reading out of redundant information but at the same time find complete silence a bit creepy and it doesn't help with spotting subtle incapacitation, either.
It all goes to show that the human interface in modern airliners is still pretty crap. There's much better in the GA world and even in cars...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Nottingham
Age: 72
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Chris Scott,
Yes, I once flew on the Herald,on a foggy morning at BHX when left to his own devices the Captain would have delivered the aircraft into his car in the staff car park, of course I said something. The whole point is, that people now respond with standard calls, regardless of what is actually happening, because they hear what they expect to. and no I don't have any medals, or indeed any wings.
Yes, I once flew on the Herald,on a foggy morning at BHX when left to his own devices the Captain would have delivered the aircraft into his car in the staff car park, of course I said something. The whole point is, that people now respond with standard calls, regardless of what is actually happening, because they hear what they expect to. and no I don't have any medals, or indeed any wings.
Sorry Phil Turner,
You've got me confused now. Are you saying that you were serious in your previous post?
What you write is too cryptic for my simple mind: just the sort of deliberate beating about the bush that could lead to misunderstanding in a cockpit (or anywhere).
I wasn't suggesting you were anything like that Dakota captain.
When you intervened in the Herald incident, how long were you aware of the developing problem before you spoke up?
And were you a member of the cockpit crew, or just visiting?
You say you have no wings.
Are you a pilot or flight engineer?
Have you ever been flight crew in a multi-crew cockpit?
If not, why are you presuming to take part in this discussion?
Chris
You've got me confused now. Are you saying that you were serious in your previous post?
What you write is too cryptic for my simple mind: just the sort of deliberate beating about the bush that could lead to misunderstanding in a cockpit (or anywhere).
I wasn't suggesting you were anything like that Dakota captain.
When you intervened in the Herald incident, how long were you aware of the developing problem before you spoke up?
And were you a member of the cockpit crew, or just visiting?
You say you have no wings.
Are you a pilot or flight engineer?
Have you ever been flight crew in a multi-crew cockpit?
If not, why are you presuming to take part in this discussion?
Chris
Moderator
I am not expressing any view in respect of the previous post.
However, I note that there is no forum objection to non-pilots commenting in or about threads providing that the normal etiquette is observed.
However, I note that there is no forum objection to non-pilots commenting in or about threads providing that the normal etiquette is observed.