Callouts frenzy
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 267
Likes: 21
From: France
Joined: Sep 2010
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 886
Likes: 235
From: by the seaside
I posted the avianca accident as a facetious comment although you could read another loss when they ran out of fuel, crashed and burnt because an air traffic did not understand their situation.
An example of bad English was in Dublin when two natives were involved..the tower gave the private chopper a cleared to cross after the rolling traffic which the pilot interpreted as a landing aircraft rolling along the runway rather than the executive jet about to take off which narrowly passed underneath the air taxiing chopper.
I joined what became “Britain’s finest” with a mild Essex accent to be immersed in various local British accents along with public school, fake public school and public school badly faking cockney. My close mate died along with more than 100 other bods when the skipper strayed from standard phraseology along with procedures.
My next job was with the Swiss who had 23% foreigner pilots in the cockpit; the vast majority spoke Swiss German dialects, followed by archaic French, various countries English, German, Dutch and a few others. After a couple of incidents I changed my vocabulary, annunciation and speed of delivery followed by phrasing a question so that it couldn’t be answered with yes or no. Such was my drastic change that a good English mate asked if I had had a stroke.
There were times when I carried out an unusual briefing in two languages - not always successful.
Take advice from others; there are good reasons that most airlines doggedly use English in the cockpit..even when I taught English to winch launch and after 40 years of flying a student managed to do what he wasn’t supposed to do.
ps I haven’t mentioned the French whom many are atrocious at standard English on the RT let alone in the cockpit.
An example of bad English was in Dublin when two natives were involved..the tower gave the private chopper a cleared to cross after the rolling traffic which the pilot interpreted as a landing aircraft rolling along the runway rather than the executive jet about to take off which narrowly passed underneath the air taxiing chopper.
I joined what became “Britain’s finest” with a mild Essex accent to be immersed in various local British accents along with public school, fake public school and public school badly faking cockney. My close mate died along with more than 100 other bods when the skipper strayed from standard phraseology along with procedures.
My next job was with the Swiss who had 23% foreigner pilots in the cockpit; the vast majority spoke Swiss German dialects, followed by archaic French, various countries English, German, Dutch and a few others. After a couple of incidents I changed my vocabulary, annunciation and speed of delivery followed by phrasing a question so that it couldn’t be answered with yes or no. Such was my drastic change that a good English mate asked if I had had a stroke.
There were times when I carried out an unusual briefing in two languages - not always successful.
Take advice from others; there are good reasons that most airlines doggedly use English in the cockpit..even when I taught English to winch launch and after 40 years of flying a student managed to do what he wasn’t supposed to do.
ps I haven’t mentioned the French whom many are atrocious at standard English on the RT let alone in the cockpit.
Last edited by blind pew; 2nd April 2025 at 15:06. Reason: Post script
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 267
Likes: 21
From: France
My close mate died along with more than 100 other bods when the skipper strayed from standard phraseology along with procedures.
What happened, if it isn't too personal?
Joined: Sep 2010
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 886
Likes: 235
From: by the seaside
Staines 1972…PROBABLY ; captain who couldn’t manage the trident and stuck the autopilot in early ordered my mate, who was only partly trained and flying illegally due to industrial action, to « put it in » with reference to the new cleared altitude which was the captain’s duty. Pilot monitoring! Duty was to select the droop in which my mate did which led to an almost instant stick push, death rattle and autopilot disconnect plus a lot of flashing lights = game over.
Even with two brits who didn’t speak any foreign tongues operating a British aircraft with British SOPs in English it can go wrong - to add another language with associated dialects, which I presume your’s is French, is ludicrous.
I’ve been fortunate in having instruction in 4 continents by many foreigners and different flying disciplines but to mix two languages!
There are many forms of French, not only the differences between Paris, Provance, Alsace and Britany but add Belgium, Switzerland, Canada and the DOMTOMs ..absolute nightmare.
Even with two brits who didn’t speak any foreign tongues operating a British aircraft with British SOPs in English it can go wrong - to add another language with associated dialects, which I presume your’s is French, is ludicrous.
I’ve been fortunate in having instruction in 4 continents by many foreigners and different flying disciplines but to mix two languages!
There are many forms of French, not only the differences between Paris, Provance, Alsace and Britany but add Belgium, Switzerland, Canada and the DOMTOMs ..absolute nightmare.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 267
Likes: 21
From: France
Don't worry so much about French. Apart from a few words that have nothing to do with aviation, everything is completely the same. There are starting to be differences and misunderstandings between the French and Canadians, but we don't have any Quebecers in our company.
Moreover, even regarding the accent, we all have more or less the same one. Only the working classes can have a relatively strong accent.
Indeed, saying to put it in is completely unclear, and that makes it a credible and justified cause of the crash. But we are absolutely not talking about that. We are almost 50 years after that crash, and while it is obvious that it lacked callouts, we would never do that again. On the contrary, we may have fallen into the opposite excess.
I am just advocating for a balanced approach.
Moreover, even regarding the accent, we all have more or less the same one. Only the working classes can have a relatively strong accent.
Indeed, saying to put it in is completely unclear, and that makes it a credible and justified cause of the crash. But we are absolutely not talking about that. We are almost 50 years after that crash, and while it is obvious that it lacked callouts, we would never do that again. On the contrary, we may have fallen into the opposite excess.
I am just advocating for a balanced approach.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,246
Likes: 202
From: Here and there
Sometimes the flaws in non-standard calls are only obvious after the accident. The "put it in" guy might have been saying words to that effect for years with no confusion.
My opinion is that if there is a standard callout appropriate to the situation then that is what you say. If there is no applicable callout, then don't be afraid to use plain language to get your point across.
Someone else made the comment that the regulator must be pretty uptight to pick on your use of standard callouts, another viewpoint might be that your use of standard callouts is so poor that it genuinely needs to be fixed.
My opinion is that if there is a standard callout appropriate to the situation then that is what you say. If there is no applicable callout, then don't be afraid to use plain language to get your point across.
Someone else made the comment that the regulator must be pretty uptight to pick on your use of standard callouts, another viewpoint might be that your use of standard callouts is so poor that it genuinely needs to be fixed.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 267
Likes: 21
From: France
I would need to see some crashes having happened around the world, in the last years, that are due to this "problem" at the same extent that it is at my airline.
I am yet to see one accident that is due to incorrect use of callout, except the example mentioned above. It proves that no callouts at all is stupid, but since I'm not advocating for getting rid of them altogether, it doesn't contradict my point. My point is not to defend a comeback to 1970s' CRM, not at all. I am not advocating the possibility to replace "gear up" with "put them all in", not at all.
I am advocating the possibility to say "speed is slowing down", as speed is still above target (but will continue to decrease below) instead of saying the callout "speed" 5 seconds later when speed is already below the target.
I would like to see if professionals trained in a modern way (do not dig up a 50 year old story from USSR...) , who used callouts and standard phraseology in a reasonable way but with some mistakes, inconsistencies, leniency, and ever crashed, specifically due to that.
A situation in which one of the crew recognized the situation, tried to vocalize it using plain language, and it didn't work, where callouts and standard phraseology would have worked.
And preferably a situation in which both crew spoke the same language or at least had a decent level of understanding and expression in their common language.
If so, I would be more than happy to change my point of view and edit the "bark single words" part of my posts which would become inappropriate and uncalled for.
I'm not a native english speaker, but I'm a big fan of being more demanding about english proficiency for aviation operators.
I am yet to see one accident that is due to incorrect use of callout, except the example mentioned above. It proves that no callouts at all is stupid, but since I'm not advocating for getting rid of them altogether, it doesn't contradict my point. My point is not to defend a comeback to 1970s' CRM, not at all. I am not advocating the possibility to replace "gear up" with "put them all in", not at all.
I am advocating the possibility to say "speed is slowing down", as speed is still above target (but will continue to decrease below) instead of saying the callout "speed" 5 seconds later when speed is already below the target.
I would like to see if professionals trained in a modern way (do not dig up a 50 year old story from USSR...) , who used callouts and standard phraseology in a reasonable way but with some mistakes, inconsistencies, leniency, and ever crashed, specifically due to that.
A situation in which one of the crew recognized the situation, tried to vocalize it using plain language, and it didn't work, where callouts and standard phraseology would have worked.
And preferably a situation in which both crew spoke the same language or at least had a decent level of understanding and expression in their common language.
If so, I would be more than happy to change my point of view and edit the "bark single words" part of my posts which would become inappropriate and uncalled for.
I'm not a native english speaker, but I'm a big fan of being more demanding about english proficiency for aviation operators.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,246
Likes: 202
From: Here and there
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,246
Likes: 202
From: Here and there
In my opinion it's pretty simple.
1. If there's a standard callout, use it.
2. If you see a developing situation and there is no standard callout, use plain language.
3. Don't use plain language instead of a standard callout (number 1).
4. Don't be afraid to take over if the other pilot isn't responding appropriately.
Going back to your failure to intercept the localiser example. Being out of tolerance on the localiser because you haven't even armed the localiser is not an appropriate situation to use the "LOC" callout. If you're on an intercept for the localiser and the other pilot has not armed it, say something like "we are cleared for the approach". If that doesn't work, "We need to arm LOC". If that still doesn't work you might need to assume subtle incapacitation and push the button for him. At no point, in that particular circumstance, would a single "LOC" callout be the appropriate call, in my opinion. The LOC call is for when you're on the approach and it is deviating out of tolerance, not for when you haven't even got on to the approach in the first place.
As for the same call being used for mode changes and deviations, that sounds like a problem with your SOP. If the PF announces mode changes and the PM announces deviations there can't be any confusion about what the call is for.
I'd be interested to know some actual examples of what they're picking you up on because your examples aren't very compelling.
1. If there's a standard callout, use it.
2. If you see a developing situation and there is no standard callout, use plain language.
3. Don't use plain language instead of a standard callout (number 1).
4. Don't be afraid to take over if the other pilot isn't responding appropriately.
Going back to your failure to intercept the localiser example. Being out of tolerance on the localiser because you haven't even armed the localiser is not an appropriate situation to use the "LOC" callout. If you're on an intercept for the localiser and the other pilot has not armed it, say something like "we are cleared for the approach". If that doesn't work, "We need to arm LOC". If that still doesn't work you might need to assume subtle incapacitation and push the button for him. At no point, in that particular circumstance, would a single "LOC" callout be the appropriate call, in my opinion. The LOC call is for when you're on the approach and it is deviating out of tolerance, not for when you haven't even got on to the approach in the first place.
As for the same call being used for mode changes and deviations, that sounds like a problem with your SOP. If the PF announces mode changes and the PM announces deviations there can't be any confusion about what the call is for.
I'd be interested to know some actual examples of what they're picking you up on because your examples aren't very compelling.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 267
Likes: 21
From: France
Surely this comes under the category of no applicable callout so feel free to say something in plain language to bring the situation to the attention of the other pilot. This is standard CRM is it not? You say "speed" once the speed is out of tolerance but there is nothing preventing you from saying "caution speed" or something similar ahead of time. As long as you are not replacing standard callouts with your own words, what is the problem?
There were even two of them, which they both agreed upon.
I'd be interested to know some actual examples of what they're picking you up on because your examples aren't very compelling.
- Exactly the situation above, saying "your speed is gonna get low" or "you lack thrust" as we're slowing down with not enough thrust for the desired target
- With an autobrake failure at landing, as PF I said "it isn't braking, I'm braking". The TRI wanted me to read the EICAS and read "autobrake off" (which isn't standard callout, it's reading the eicas, which I don't see why you would be doing in a critical phase of flight, and doesn't reassure the PM on the fact that the situation is being managed)
- Instead of saying "passing golf lima echo one two at x thousand feet", the purpose of which is to verify the glide, we might say "it's the right glide" or "glide checked". The shorter version is useful because it's a time you need to call the glide mode activating, the go around altitude that the PF just changed, answer some ATC messages, configure flaps.. There are many other things to do than waste syllables on naming the waypoint ?
Also this specific callout isn't related to its goal. The goal is to verify the glide, not to mention the altitude at which a waypoint is passed, this callout would not help to detect a mistake.
- Instead of "stabilizer procedure" I said "stabilizer, shut them off"
About this one, read my original comment :
For example, when refering to a memory item, imagine being with a colleague in the middle of the atlantic right at the lowest of the circadian rythm, who did not study it in three years (it seems that memory items all come back at least every three years in the sim?), who is subject to startle effect, how confident are you that he is going to take the correct action if you just say "XXX procedure" or "XXX memory items", versus if you direct the item(s) to do ?
If I use a word or callout, the receiving person's brain needs extra steps to process it. It needs to refer to knowledge that he has, and accessing memory necessarily takes a bit longer and carries a bigger risk of error than just doing something that is directed.
If I use a word or callout, the receiving person's brain needs extra steps to process it. It needs to refer to knowledge that he has, and accessing memory necessarily takes a bit longer and carries a bigger risk of error than just doing something that is directed.
And I don't have much else, all other things that we have to say, we said them. All the callouts for flaps and gear, for FMAs, the "thousand to go"s, the checklists, the confirm items, the stall and other maneuvers callouts, the control transfers, we all do them by the book.
I'm really surprised because they won't ever criticise a decision if all crew agreed on it (as in, for decision making what counts is how the crew works as a team), but they will criticise a non standard callout (for example saying "set speed 250" in our language instead of using the same in english which is the official way) even if it was understood. That seems contradictory to me.
And also given the amount of callout mistakes (just a few) and the importance of the topic (seemingly pretty low) I'm surprised that it took up such a big part of the debriefing.
The explanation is that apparently it's a topic that the authority is monitoring, so of course they tend to pick up more of that stuff during the sessions. It shows that they are following the authorities guidance.
Joined: Sep 2010
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 886
Likes: 235
From: by the seaside
Moreover, even regarding the accent, we all have more or less the same one. Only the working classes can have a relatively strong accent.
quoted
you obviously haven't understood my post and your working class is exactly the rubbish that I endured in my first carrier.
Whilst xenophobic the swiss mainly spoke their local buntsli dialects in spite of being officers in the military, mostly on fast jets..they were proud of it.
France suffers from Degaulle and his fascism ,- my father translated for him when he was in London during the war and was so discussed that he didn't return to 1974. DeGaulle split the cultural departments up to the detriment of the country.
I tend not to tell anyone what I did nor my noblesse routes..when I do their attitude changes. In the South there is a general looking down their noses at those whose cars have the prefixes 70 or 90..
Whilst I've flown for UTA and air afrique..I've given up with the poor RT from the French.. stick with what airbus recommends
quoted
you obviously haven't understood my post and your working class is exactly the rubbish that I endured in my first carrier.
Whilst xenophobic the swiss mainly spoke their local buntsli dialects in spite of being officers in the military, mostly on fast jets..they were proud of it.
France suffers from Degaulle and his fascism ,- my father translated for him when he was in London during the war and was so discussed that he didn't return to 1974. DeGaulle split the cultural departments up to the detriment of the country.
I tend not to tell anyone what I did nor my noblesse routes..when I do their attitude changes. In the South there is a general looking down their noses at those whose cars have the prefixes 70 or 90..
Whilst I've flown for UTA and air afrique..I've given up with the poor RT from the French.. stick with what airbus recommends
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 112
Likes: 3
From: At home
CVividasku are your manuals in French or English?
If those are in English, than what is the point of having SOP callouts in French?
If those are in English, than what is the point of having SOP callouts in French?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 267
Likes: 21
From: France
CVividasku are your manuals in French or English?
If those are in English, than what is the point of having SOP callouts in French?
If those are in English, than what is the point of having SOP callouts in French?
Why ? Because we understand both.
And some people prefer to switch languages entirely, whereas other do not.
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 478
Likes: 87
From: Aust
I dislike some of these so called Standard Calls. If for example the airspeed is higher or lower than the planned airspeed the call by the PM should be "Speed high or "Speed low." Unfortunately there will always be the eager beaver PM calling a 2 or 3 knot difference from planned airspeed which can be very irritating. Sink rate is another call that needs clarifying. If the sink rate is abnormal for the stage of flight path a sensible call would be for example Sink Rate 1200.
Joined: May 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 108
Likes: 88
From: Somewhere at the Milky Way
I dislike some of these so called Standard Calls. If for example the airspeed is higher or lower than the planned airspeed the call by the PM should be "Speed high or "Speed low." Unfortunately there will always be the eager beaver PM calling a 2 or 3 knot difference from planned airspeed which can be very irritating. Sink rate is another call that needs clarifying. If the sink rate is abnormal for the stage of flight path a sensible call would be for example Sink Rate 1200.
For an approach, goes the same way. If it is not briefed then the "Sink Rate" call-out is to be expected. Speaking of that, I understand that on a steep approach, even if the PF forgets to mention that the VS is going to be higher than 1000 fpm, I will understand that is normal and refrain from calling "sink rate" all the way down. Similarly, I will wait 2-3 sec before doing the call of sink rate on a normal descent approach, and generally I wait a tad longer the higher we are.
Joined: Sep 2018
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 402
Likes: 240
From: Seattle
If i fly with an eager beaver sort who calls “SPEED” when 5 or 6 knots fast when the SOP is to call 10+ then I’ll just ignore the idiot. Same for ”Three reds”. If they ask, I’ll point out the SOP and tell them I assumed they were incapacitated thus spouting rubbish which I chose to ignore.
It results in an incredible reversion to actual SOP calls rather than verbal diarrhoea.
Yes, I am that guy.
It results in an incredible reversion to actual SOP calls rather than verbal diarrhoea.
Yes, I am that guy.
Joined: Sep 2018
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 402
Likes: 240
From: Seattle
Also whilst I’m complaining - shouldn’t the call out “1000 to go” or any variation of not be based on 1,000ft barometric but on one MINUTE to go? The point of the call is awareness right? So if you’re climbing at 5,000ft/min in the TMA - at 1,000ft to go it’s a waste of time. Wouldn’t it be better to say “One minute to level” or some variation of?