Fly-By-Mouth, the new CRM?

[Phil Turner]

Dear Chris Scott,
For what it's worth, 20 years Captain, B737, B757, MD83, A320. and still very much a learner.

[Chris Scott]

Quotes from Phil Turner:
(1) On most European buses, there is a sign that reads, " Please do not speak to, or distract the driver, unless in case of emergency". Good advice.
(2) The whole point is, that people now respond with standard calls, regardless of what is actually happening, because they hear what they expect to.
(3) and no I don't have any medals, or indeed any wings.
[My highlighting; unquote.]

Now that you have explained that you do indeed “have wings” − in the conventional meaning of that expression, could you tell us what your philosophy on cockpit communication is?

You didn’t answer my main point: at what stage should the copilot (or other member of the crew) inform the pilot that there is a problem? And how does he/she set about doing so? Surely there should be a sharing of mental models at an earlier stage, to stop the adverse situation developing?

I have to agree with you that some routine calls are counterproductive, a wasted effort, or at least a partly missed opportunity. See my above posts.

[SNS3Guppy]

You didn’t answer my main point: at what stage should the copilot (or other member of the crew) inform the pilot that there is a problem? And how does he/she set about doing so?

Immediately. Plain English works. If it's a deviation from the standard conditions defined by the standard callouts...that's what deviation calls are for. If it's something else, then shout it out.

[tmkhan5]

Yes, I agree in my opinion with computers doing so much these days,the only calls should be actions omitted by PF,too many callouts by some copilots who try to comply with company SOPs in an attempt to satisfy thier captains nd the company in fact drift away from situational awereness hence the whole exercise becomes counterproductive.In reality many procedures are made by the companies are not based on experince but are madeto satisfy legislative requirments.

[SNS3Guppy]

Yes, I agree in my opinion with computers doing so much these days,the only calls should be actions omitted by PF,too many callouts by some copilots who try to comply with company SOPs in an attempt to satisfy thier captains nd the company in fact drift away from situational awereness hence the whole exercise becomes counterproductive.In reality many procedures are made by the companies are not based on experince but are madeto satisfy legislative requirments.

SSG is back. Again.

Which calls, exactly, are made to "satisfy legislative requirements?"

[BelArgUSA]

Bla-bla-bla-bla-blah...!

Same for me Lookforshooter...
xxx
I hate these guys who constantly "verify" or "confirm" verbally normal actions, such as during start...
"N2", then "N1", "fuel flow", "EGT"... for no apparent reason..
And not required (nor specified) by the AOM or airline SOP...
xxx
I would ONLY expect a word, such as "EGT" in case of a hot start or malfunction.
Everything that is "normal" is "silent" in my airline.
xxx

Happy contrails