Enunciation of MCP indications. An overkill perhaps?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enunciation of MCP indications. An overkill perhaps?
Both Boeing and Airbus recommend crews enunciate all changes to MCP selections. Meaning,when selections are made someone should read out the indication aloud.
On top of that there are operators who include more "calls" to suit local SOP. Recently, a 737 operator added another requirement that the enunciation call must be promptly initiated by the PF. This caused a minor moment of irritation when an over-eager co-pilot anxious to prove something, snapped out the enunciation before the captain as PF had the chance to say anything. When the captain queried this over eager young buck, the YB said " the SOP said it had to be done promptly and you were too slow so I said it"
This type of petty point scoring is more common than realised and is often the source of friction. It is not "good CRM" as some claim, but blatant stupidity.
I flew in another era where a silent cockpit was encouraged. Both pilots had two eyes, and the argument was what is the point of unnecessary enunciation when a glance to confirm an MCP selection was all that was needed. Saying something aloud after an MCP selection does not always ensure the correct selection is made. How many time in the past have we heard the parrot-like call "Undercarriage down three greens) in reply to a checklist challenge when in fact the gear had not been selected?
The old SOP of no non-operational calls below 10,000 ft was understandable. Some may remember from years ago, the accident to a PANAM Boeing 707 approaching to land on Sydney Airport Runway 25. In those days it was a shortish runway.
The flight path was over a large public cemetery with the co-pilot remarking they were flying over the dead heart of Sydney. Laughter in the cockpit. The Australian new T-VASIS was installed for this runway and the captain remarked about the funny looking VASIS. He had not seen a T-VASIS before.
In the event, the 707 landed too fast and too long and went into the river at the far end of the runway. This was one of several accidents that prompted the now universally generally accepted SOP of no unnecessary talking below 10,000 ft.
Now we see a proliferation of cockpit enunciations below 10,000 ft starting with "N1 TOGA" as the aircraft starts its take off roll. Do we really need to enunciate that reading on the MCP? Cannot we see the reading visually?
It seems the slightest incident prompts airline managements to counter with still more voluble call-outs. Reminds me of the time in the simulator when a Japanese recruitment check pilot was observing a simulator assessment of candidates for his airline.
On the downwind leg of the assessment circuit, the candidate in the left seat was Spanish. Acting as support pilot and waiting his turn in the right seat was a voluble Eastern European captain. Man, how he could talk, prompting continually in rapid accented English. The pilot under test in the left seat simply switched off and did his own thing ignoring the babble of "advice" from the co-pilot.
It was clear the Japanese check pilot in the jump seat didn't have a clue what all the talking was about as his own English language skills were minimal. However he praised the co-pilot for "excellent CRM" for all his babbling despite the fact the assessing captain had no idea of what was actually being said. To the Japanese check pilot more talking meant good "CRM"
I wonder have we gone too far in all this enunciating of every MCP selection, and every action. Do we really need to reply to a request for flaps with "Speed checked - flap Five selected - Flap Five running- Flap Five set"?
I know nature abhors a vacuum. But have we gone too far from the silent cockpit principle, to instead filling the golden silence with superfluous enunciations of things we can see with our own eyes?
On top of that there are operators who include more "calls" to suit local SOP. Recently, a 737 operator added another requirement that the enunciation call must be promptly initiated by the PF. This caused a minor moment of irritation when an over-eager co-pilot anxious to prove something, snapped out the enunciation before the captain as PF had the chance to say anything. When the captain queried this over eager young buck, the YB said " the SOP said it had to be done promptly and you were too slow so I said it"
This type of petty point scoring is more common than realised and is often the source of friction. It is not "good CRM" as some claim, but blatant stupidity.
I flew in another era where a silent cockpit was encouraged. Both pilots had two eyes, and the argument was what is the point of unnecessary enunciation when a glance to confirm an MCP selection was all that was needed. Saying something aloud after an MCP selection does not always ensure the correct selection is made. How many time in the past have we heard the parrot-like call "Undercarriage down three greens) in reply to a checklist challenge when in fact the gear had not been selected?
The old SOP of no non-operational calls below 10,000 ft was understandable. Some may remember from years ago, the accident to a PANAM Boeing 707 approaching to land on Sydney Airport Runway 25. In those days it was a shortish runway.
The flight path was over a large public cemetery with the co-pilot remarking they were flying over the dead heart of Sydney. Laughter in the cockpit. The Australian new T-VASIS was installed for this runway and the captain remarked about the funny looking VASIS. He had not seen a T-VASIS before.
In the event, the 707 landed too fast and too long and went into the river at the far end of the runway. This was one of several accidents that prompted the now universally generally accepted SOP of no unnecessary talking below 10,000 ft.
Now we see a proliferation of cockpit enunciations below 10,000 ft starting with "N1 TOGA" as the aircraft starts its take off roll. Do we really need to enunciate that reading on the MCP? Cannot we see the reading visually?
It seems the slightest incident prompts airline managements to counter with still more voluble call-outs. Reminds me of the time in the simulator when a Japanese recruitment check pilot was observing a simulator assessment of candidates for his airline.
On the downwind leg of the assessment circuit, the candidate in the left seat was Spanish. Acting as support pilot and waiting his turn in the right seat was a voluble Eastern European captain. Man, how he could talk, prompting continually in rapid accented English. The pilot under test in the left seat simply switched off and did his own thing ignoring the babble of "advice" from the co-pilot.
It was clear the Japanese check pilot in the jump seat didn't have a clue what all the talking was about as his own English language skills were minimal. However he praised the co-pilot for "excellent CRM" for all his babbling despite the fact the assessing captain had no idea of what was actually being said. To the Japanese check pilot more talking meant good "CRM"
I wonder have we gone too far in all this enunciating of every MCP selection, and every action. Do we really need to reply to a request for flaps with "Speed checked - flap Five selected - Flap Five running- Flap Five set"?
I know nature abhors a vacuum. But have we gone too far from the silent cockpit principle, to instead filling the golden silence with superfluous enunciations of things we can see with our own eyes?
Well said TM. I like the maritime method of repeating an instruction as it is executed.
E.g. PF commands "flap 15" Other guy/girl does it and simply states "15 selected". We have all sorts of disagree warnings to tell us if the flaps don't get to where we told 'em to go, so, why all the other noise about flaps running, flaps arriving, flaps happy in position?
My other pet hates are the response to the 'gear up' command of: "selected, three reds" when there is bugger-all anyone can do at that stage if there are only one and a half reds. And the 'inbound, no flags' call. One operator I had some dealings with had a hilarious response to the 'visual' call on approach. It was: "for the threshold".....doh?
The really important calls are the altitude awareness 'one to go' calls, yet these are probably more often missed than some of the lesser fly-by-mouth ones you mention. Probably because of all the other tribal cries being uttered at the time.
E.g. PF commands "flap 15" Other guy/girl does it and simply states "15 selected". We have all sorts of disagree warnings to tell us if the flaps don't get to where we told 'em to go, so, why all the other noise about flaps running, flaps arriving, flaps happy in position?
My other pet hates are the response to the 'gear up' command of: "selected, three reds" when there is bugger-all anyone can do at that stage if there are only one and a half reds. And the 'inbound, no flags' call. One operator I had some dealings with had a hilarious response to the 'visual' call on approach. It was: "for the threshold".....doh?
The really important calls are the altitude awareness 'one to go' calls, yet these are probably more often missed than some of the lesser fly-by-mouth ones you mention. Probably because of all the other tribal cries being uttered at the time.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 17th Nov 2013 at 06:16.
I agree that we talk too much now days. Every now and again I fly with someone who only makes the bare minimum calls and it's very nice to do an ILS in IMC to a low level and have only a few words spoken. ......does this mean I'm getting old?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really need to reply to a request for flaps with "Speed checked - flap Five selected - Flap Five running- Flap Five set"?
My other pet hates are the response to the 'gear up' command of: 'selected, three reds' when there is bugger-all anyone can do at that stage if there are only one and a half reds.
Regarding the thread title, we don't verbalize AP mode changes. Really can't complain about our callouts. What gets me is our checklists. Our before takeoff checklist, for example, has thirteen (13) items.
Checkie, you should come to the Land of Oz. Most checklists here have damn near 13 items on the line up checklist! Drives me nuts.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess my outfit is still not enlightened then. We use a mainly silent cockpit approach on our 737s. The recent introduction of the "Speedbrake" and "Reverse" callout on landing was met by an uproar as we only call out something that isn't working as intended, whereas in those two cases we now have to callout if something works.
Apart from that we do not verbally acknowledge any command, for example flaps or gear, or even MCP selections, there is however the finger pointing procedure for altitude selections which warrants only a nod or a "checked". Of course if flying manually the PF will command MCP selection, those do not require a verbal acknowledgement though, simply doing as requested is enough.
All normal checklists that have to be read while the aircraft is in motion (before take off to landing) fit on a sticker on the yoke and are kept as short as possible. There is no lineup checklist at all and the approach checklist contains only one item.
Non normal operation is of course a completely different beast and pretty much everything has to be acknowledged.
Apart from that we do not verbally acknowledge any command, for example flaps or gear, or even MCP selections, there is however the finger pointing procedure for altitude selections which warrants only a nod or a "checked". Of course if flying manually the PF will command MCP selection, those do not require a verbal acknowledgement though, simply doing as requested is enough.
All normal checklists that have to be read while the aircraft is in motion (before take off to landing) fit on a sticker on the yoke and are kept as short as possible. There is no lineup checklist at all and the approach checklist contains only one item.
Non normal operation is of course a completely different beast and pretty much everything has to be acknowledged.
Last edited by Denti; 17th Nov 2013 at 07:29.
Minimal callouts were normal procedure for us.
If everything's working properly no need to yack about it and it worked well.
Then we merged with 'the friendly skies' adopted their procedures and it's yack, yack yack.
It's a major distraction and a major PITA.
If everything's working properly no need to yack about it and it worked well.
Then we merged with 'the friendly skies' adopted their procedures and it's yack, yack yack.
It's a major distraction and a major PITA.
The new " reversers normal" call is probably knee jerk to the over runs that have been occurring around the world when reversers were not deployed. I reckon they should address the training and company cultural issues whereby they cross the fence high and fast rather than the reversers. If the over run aircraft had been on profile the pilots would have had the brain space to deploy the reversers IMO.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: London
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. The whole point of CRM is situational awareness. If one guy is pressing buttons, then it makes sense that he ensures the other guy knows the changing state of the aircraft. One would think the PM should simply be paying attention, but changing frequency, talking to ops/company, dealing with the CC, selecting flap, being alerted to wayward trends, reading the QRH, etc all mean the fellow may easily miss is quick stab of a button on the MCP.
I say that calling out FMA changes and the like would is entirely sensible and reasonable.
I say that calling out FMA changes and the like would is entirely sensible and reasonable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but changing frequency, talking to ops/company, dealing with the CC, selecting flap, being alerted to wayward trends, reading the QRH, etc all mean the fellow may easily miss is quick stab of a button on the MCP.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have sympathy for both sides in this discussion, on the one hand constant repetition of what is plainly in front of you can be a bit tiresome, but. . . the 738 can sometimes change modes without any obvious warning. My current pet hate is the transition between the required mode of VNav PTH & VNav SPD, which, given our increasing reliance on this mode for intermediate & final approaches, is one you don't want to miss. One could argue that monitoring of the path deviation "should" alert you before this becomes a problem, but, I really wonder whether Boeing haven't dropped a clanger here by not giving a msg via the CDU akin to "VNav disconnect", that you are now in an unprotected (vertically at least) mode.
In an ideal world minimum is best,but it is sometimes useful when distracted, to have someone remind you what is happening. Given the number of overuns caused by late /non selection of reverse/speedbrakes I think Boeing had no choice in these calls becoming the norm, personally, I am in agreement with them, even if we are calling a "normal" as opposed to a "non-normal". . . . Landing on a short slippery runway is not the time to be glancing down to check if all that is gonna save your @ss is deployed/available. . like "autobrake-disarm" it can make the difference between following the landing by taxying/swimming.
In an ideal world minimum is best,but it is sometimes useful when distracted, to have someone remind you what is happening. Given the number of overuns caused by late /non selection of reverse/speedbrakes I think Boeing had no choice in these calls becoming the norm, personally, I am in agreement with them, even if we are calling a "normal" as opposed to a "non-normal". . . . Landing on a short slippery runway is not the time to be glancing down to check if all that is gonna save your @ss is deployed/available. . like "autobrake-disarm" it can make the difference between following the landing by taxying/swimming.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Mars
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Ike.
The FMA (on the bus) is what the aircraft is *actually* doing, whereas the MCP is what you've *asked* for...the two are not always the same!!!
Therefore it is critical to annunciate any changes to the FMA state. Annunciating changes to the MCP are good for SA for the other pilot though.
I do agree though that there can be too many calls. A few years ago, my company went down the road of changing SOP to annunciate almost everything. It was a wordy nightmare, to the point of distraction (missing radio calls etc etc). To their credit, they have since cut down the number of calls once they realised the issues it was causing.
The FMA (on the bus) is what the aircraft is *actually* doing, whereas the MCP is what you've *asked* for...the two are not always the same!!!
Therefore it is critical to annunciate any changes to the FMA state. Annunciating changes to the MCP are good for SA for the other pilot though.
I do agree though that there can be too many calls. A few years ago, my company went down the road of changing SOP to annunciate almost everything. It was a wordy nightmare, to the point of distraction (missing radio calls etc etc). To their credit, they have since cut down the number of calls once they realised the issues it was causing.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but changing frequency, talking to ops/company, dealing with the CC, selecting flap, being alerted to wayward trends, reading the QRH, etc all mean the fellow may easily miss is quick stab of a button on the MCP.
If I'm particularly busy (which your example isn't), I expect the other guy to focus on the flying bit, and leave the rest to me. If I'm ever wondering what the plane is doing, I can look at the FMA and question anything unusual. We have a master warning sound, and a master caution sound. No need for my voice to be the master normal sound.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm more interested in what the FMA says, not the MCP.
That is what the call should be: if any. The FMA. PF announces that you've made the selection after you see the FMA. PM then verifies it by glancing themselves.
More importantly, in some companies they call all changes, even automatic ones. I as PM called them out and PF said"check." (what else.) However, the FMA was an unhelpful one. I called it again and received the same response. I called it again in the hope the hint would ring a bell. The response was, "check, i heard you the first time." Unfortunately, VNAV PTH at SID cap altitude was not what we wanted when ATC had requested us to climb. But the guy had pushed the VNAV button, so that must be alright then. Ya!
Being a parrot is not being a pilot; neither is being a trained monkey. The combination of the two is deadly.
That is what the call should be: if any. The FMA. PF announces that you've made the selection after you see the FMA. PM then verifies it by glancing themselves.
More importantly, in some companies they call all changes, even automatic ones. I as PM called them out and PF said"check." (what else.) However, the FMA was an unhelpful one. I called it again and received the same response. I called it again in the hope the hint would ring a bell. The response was, "check, i heard you the first time." Unfortunately, VNAV PTH at SID cap altitude was not what we wanted when ATC had requested us to climb. But the guy had pushed the VNAV button, so that must be alright then. Ya!
Being a parrot is not being a pilot; neither is being a trained monkey. The combination of the two is deadly.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: London
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodness gracious me! All this happening simultaneously. Must have been quite an exciting flight..
...and the solution to your example of an overloaded PM, is to give him more stuff to deal with by requiring him to acknowledge a callout?.
So, given that it is pretty much standard practice for FMA changes, surely it is reasonable that the principle extends to any other change in aircraft state actioned not in response to a request or by the aircraft itself. VNAV SPD was a great example, ARM has caught some out too. Who calls out thrust mode changes? I have never seen it done, despite it being also a Boeing recommendation, I would still argue good practice though.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
energiser
"Spot on Ike.
The FMA (on the bus) is what the aircraft is *actually* doing, whereas the MCP is what you've *asked* for...the two are not always the same!!!"
No.
The MCP is what you asked the aircraft to do.
The FMA is what it is trying to do.
The instruments and looking out the window is what it is actually doing!
Critically important in my opinion.
Watching and understanding the FMA is not the end of airmanship.
"Spot on Ike.
The FMA (on the bus) is what the aircraft is *actually* doing, whereas the MCP is what you've *asked* for...the two are not always the same!!!"
No.
The MCP is what you asked the aircraft to do.
The FMA is what it is trying to do.
The instruments and looking out the window is what it is actually doing!
Critically important in my opinion.
Watching and understanding the FMA is not the end of airmanship.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not my solution, it is a Boeing recommendation and an Airbus Golden Rule to call out FMA changes and in every SOP I have seen, so nothing radical in my post at all.
So, given that it is pretty much standard practice for FMA changes, surely it is reasonable that the principle extends to any other change in aircraft state actioned not in response to a request or by the aircraft itself.
So, given that it is pretty much standard practice for FMA changes, surely it is reasonable that the principle extends to any other change in aircraft state actioned not in response to a request or by the aircraft itself.
If we're going to call out the expected result of a normal input, why stop at the MCP/FMA? Why isn't there a "rotating" call as the nose leaves the ground? Wouldn't it also be beneficial to have the PF call "idle power" during the flare, then have the PM aurally verify that the engines are spooling down?
How do people find time to listen to ATC with all these callouts being made?
MCP/FCU = Rumour
FMA = Fact
I can remember when we used to land and taxi off the runway without saying a word; now it is "speedbrake up/spoilers", "reverse normal/reverse green" "decel" "autobrake disarmed" etc.
These changes originated with the manufacturers, as a consequence of accidents (and no doubt some legal action against the respective manufacturers). It should be remembered though that many of these aircraft are now being flown by 500-hour pilots, where that was an unheard of situation 30 years ago. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the manufacturers are allowing for the lowest common denominator.
Like an earlier poster said, I can see both sides of this argument, and neither is perfect, but it is what we are stuck with.
FMA = Fact
I can remember when we used to land and taxi off the runway without saying a word; now it is "speedbrake up/spoilers", "reverse normal/reverse green" "decel" "autobrake disarmed" etc.
These changes originated with the manufacturers, as a consequence of accidents (and no doubt some legal action against the respective manufacturers). It should be remembered though that many of these aircraft are now being flown by 500-hour pilots, where that was an unheard of situation 30 years ago. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the manufacturers are allowing for the lowest common denominator.
Like an earlier poster said, I can see both sides of this argument, and neither is perfect, but it is what we are stuck with.