FMAs...to callout or not

[FlareArmed]

Some companies require Flight Mode Annunciator (FMA) changes to be called out and others don't.

Some require the callout to be acknowledged with 'checked' and others don't.

Some companies require the speed limit to be called before making a flap or gear selection, for example, PF:"Speed below, 250, Flap 1". PNF:"Speed checked; selected".

I am interested in your opinion and experience. Which do you believe is safer: crew chatter and multiple 'checked' calls for cockpit situational awareness or silent monitoring with maximum 'ears out of the cockpit'?

Does your company require crew callouts when things are going right or just when it's not?

Is anyone aware of any studies?

[m&v]

Airbus SOP's (3.03.90p2) stipulate FMA :all changes will be normallycalled by the PF...
Although some outfits were'nt as emphatic with the FMA changes ,some Boeing people think it's a good practice.

[411A]

Operated TriStars for a very long time, nearly all equipped with FMS.
All companies did not require these callouts as the pilots assigned to this equipment were expected to know the aircraft limitations...and besides, autopilot/FD/FMS selections are clearly visable to all.

IMO, speak up when it is called for (abnormal/unusual ops) rather than all the chit-chat that permeates all too many flight decks today.

[Plastic Penguin]

Calling FMA modes and checking speeds isnt about the individual pilot knowing the limitations or how to use the AFDS... It is about both pilots being in the loop when it comes to what the aircraft is doing. Particularily important when you work for a huge company and fly with different people all the time. Because I have never met him before, I dont know if the other pilot is a muppet or not. I would like to know he is checking up on me as I do him for mistakes in speeds or FMA changes

[downwind]

Guys,

I do know that Virgin Atlantic employ these principals for their flight ops, IMHO it is good pratice for both pilots to know what the AFDS is doing in the critical phases's of flight. I do recall from someone when doing a Boeing type rating that there was a book written by a rusian pilot who was a B777 flight instructor, that went quite into depth about FMA annunciations.

Cheers

DW.

[Bumblebee]

In our outfit (on the 737 classic), current SOP is to call and cross check FMA changes when the HP makes a new MCP selection. Both HP and NHP should be monitoring anyway during critical phases anyhow - so it shouldnt be necessary (for example) to call out everytime you get ALT ACQ and ALT HOLD each time you capture and level off, since that's what you expect it to do - (and the HP is flying the aeroplane aren't they?! Some colleagues call all FMA changes, which i don't have any objection to, but it can be a bit too much sometimes...especially as in the example above, when 9 times out of 10 ATC call you with a reclearance to climb just as the AFDS goes into ALT ACQ, and you have two people talking to you at once! More important, i reckon in this case, is actually cross checking that as the new level is selected and the FMA reverts to V/S, that an MCP selection for N1/VNAV/LVL CHG, engages correctly and is annunciated...

BB

[Crossunder]

All companies did not require these callouts as the pilots assigned to this equipment were expected to know the aircraft limitations...and besides, autopilot/FD/FMS selections are clearly visable to all.

...and that's the stuff accidents are made of. This cowboy attitude belongs in another era, where CRM was a strange three-letter combination and aircraft were raining down from the sky. We all know how easy it is to misread an instrument - or see things as we expect them to be. Mode annunciations and speed call will ensure that both pilots are in the loop, and will give them the opportunity to cross-check. Far too often in my company (especially when flying with the soon-to-be-golfing-full-time captains) I find that the FMS has been re-programmed while I was finding my plates or filling out the flight plan.

...rather than all the chit-chat that permeates all too many flight decks today.

Ah, you mean the professional attitude a real pilot is expected to have?

[E120]

The SOP's of my company require me to call out all FMA changes, except below 500 ft. during approach and 1000 ft. during takeoff. This excludes off course all abnormalities. This works very well. For those of you who are interested; the PF calls for a configuration change and monitors the change, while the PNF selects the change and monitors the change silently.

Safe flights

[BEagle]

We had a very simple method:

PF called for configuration change, e.g. "Flap take-off"
PNF did it, e.g. "Speed checked, selected"
FE confirmed it was happening, e.g "Running"
PNF stated when configuration had been achieved, e.g "Take-off and out"
FE confirmed, e.g. "Confirmed".

But I'm not sure whether an additional "Speed below 229 knots, flap and slat take-off and out, Mr Copiglet, if you please" is actually needed.

[wingtip777]

in our company, the airbus requires callouts, but boeing doesn`t. but recentlly , the boeing drivers find out that is a good idea to callout changes. so some of them do it even the sop doesn`t require. IMO the callouts do help sometimes. they remind us any changes of the areplane`s status.

[Intruder]

We've done it both ways (744). When we first got the airplanes, we had to call out all FMA changes. Recently (after 3+ years) the FHB was changed, and we call out virtually nothing.

There was some initial hue & cry about making unnecessary calls, but after doing it for so long it became second nature. I sometimes find it hard to NOT make the callout, and do it under my breath all the time.

I think calling out the changes is useful for new pilots on the airplane, because it gets you to start thinking about "Why is it doing that?" When you get to the "Looks like it's doing that again..." stage, it may be less useful, but only because the habit and experience has been built.

[safety_worker]

Hi All,

In my previous company, the 'B' guys didn't call it out. The fleet has been flying 'comfortably' since late 1980's. We were trained by MR. B himself. While they DO NOT have it as a mandatory STANDARD CALLOUT, they do have it as a VERIFY. One of their guys was down checking our operations out and reported that we SHOULD call out FMA's. This went back to MR. B himself, and the reply was '...upto the operator....'!

Meanwhile, the 'A' guys, DO call it out. Having sat in on many trips in the cockpit, I've noticed a parrot like fashion with the callout.

Now, in my new airline, both the 'A' and the 'B' guys do the callout.
I am glad that it is 'STANDARDISED'!

Discussion -
Do we behave like parrots by calling out what we see?
vs.
Should we callout ONLY what we don't see after making a selection (PF callout's what mode changes he makes - PNF callout's the 'missing / wrong' FMA if any, otherwise says CHECK)

I have found myself becoming a parrot in the callout whilst forgeting to 'realise' whether the FMA readout is CORRECT. I AM NEW on all-sevens, but I do realise sometimes , AFTER I have made the callout that it is correct (logically).
So how do I ensure I haven't made the wrong 'readout' in a stressfull situation, and with the other argument, how can I make sure I will recognize the wrong FMA, and then call it out.

Bottom line, bring in the Psycho / CRM experts on this (I obviously am not 1) (striving)

Safe Wishes,


sounds like i had a few b's ?????????

[LEM]

Callouts enhance awareness, calling out while ATC is calling enhances confusion.

So always make callouts, but use good common sense since aviation is not an exact science!

[411A]

Actually Crossunder, if the guys that need the 'callouts' to remind them of the limitations that they should have learned in specific equipment ground systems/procedures training, they should be taken off line flying immediately and sent back to relearn what they should have learned in the first place.

Can't bother to learn = not interested = no professional ability = goodby from the company.

And, oddly enough, the Chief Pilot and DirOps both agree.

My kinda guys...

In addition, on takeoff/landing (for example) the absolute minimum callouts should be incorporated in the FOM to insure that the flight crew actually listens to ATC communication. Have found all too often during line checks that this is not done, resulting in rather too much uncertainty/missed calls, and in one case, actually turning the wrong way, to avoid conflicting traffic.

Not good.

[Crossunder]

Then how are you going to make sure that both pilots are in the loop if there are no callouts? I'm not talking about speed callouts - I totally agree with you on that one, but FMS mode and AP/FD changes must be called out. How's the PNF going to monitor the PF if he doesn't know what the PF is doing? Just look at AA's B757 flight into Cali. One is changing AP/FD modes, while the other one is punching on the FMS. I bet you they didn't even write down the clearances. Didn't go too well did it?

[LEM]

I also think that calling

"Speed below, 250, Flap 1"

is ridicolous!
Just call "Flaps 1" and PNF respods "Speed checked, Flaps 1".

Totally agree with Crossunder.

[411A]

Good point Crossunder, but then you have to remember Cali was an AA problem. Wonder if they even thought to actually tune the ADF properly? Last minute changes (when the pilots had a perfect chance to say 'no thanks') together with no other traffic, made for a bad day (night) for all concerned.

[Iceman49]

At our company we have Boeing and Airbus...we do not call out any FMA changes. Our callouts concern only gear and flap configuation changes, additionally we call out all altitude changes, plus 2 and 1 to go. I our company philosphy is to call out deviations from the norm that are recognized on the FMA, eg when it goes to vertical speed vs open climb or descent. Since I have never worked for a company that calls out all FMA changes...its difficult for me to support one side or the other. However, IMHO I would think that after a while the callouts would become like background chatter...thus being ignored.

[Phoenix_X]

I've flown FMA callouts on the Boeing, then no FMA callouts on Boeing, then FMA callouts on the 'Bus.

I prefer no FMA callouts unless non-normal or non-expected. The FMA calls cause alot of distraction. Then again, I'll probably get used to it after awhile.

[lizard drinking]

So many think that it is OK to use a tongue to fly an airplane. Yack yack, constant chatter repeating the bleeding obvious. What makes you think that the chatterer is actually doing what he/she says he is doing? Much of it is as meaningless as the calls, and such calls as “check speed” are just that; words. I would rather fly with a pilot who does the job quietly and conscientiously than who yacks.

Boeing procedures require the pilots to monitor the performance of the airplane, which means ADI, ND and Eicas. The FMA does the same thing, and displays what it is doing. What is the point of monitoring a monitor? If there was a need for a verbalisation, it would be easy to fit a voice mode, but there is no such need.

The constant chatter degrades the callout effectiveness. If the PNF only called abnormal indications, it would have a greater effect. The PF would actually listen to what was said, instead of tuning it out as a distraction. As it is now, if there was a need to call a malfunction, there is a good chance this would be missed in the general noise.

Newbies to the airplane take a while to learn how to make these callouts, especially during takeoff, and there is no way most of them can see anything other than what they are trained to see, which is normal indications. If there was something going wrong they would not see it since they are flat out getting all the calls in on time. When they have more experience, they still will not see anything outside the FMA since they are trained to have tunnel vision.

If the FMA was taped over, it would be easy to monitor the performance of the airplane using normal flight instruments and much safer, since it would be independent of the FMA and it would actually relate to what the airplane should be doing, not what the FMA thinks is correct. Consider situations that cause errors;

1. Takeoff with LNAV/VNAV not armed (error in setting up or change of runway etc). If the LNAV and VNAV do not capture, the FMA will not change, and many support pilots will not respond since the FMA does not have a reason to react.

2. The airplane levels off during a climb because the intermediate altitude is still in the vertical profile. The FMA shows “ALT”, and the PNF calls it out, not noticing that the level off is not what is wanted. And many times, that is all that will happen until someone notices that the level off is not correct.

3. While in ALT HOLD, ATC instructs further climb/descent. The PNF changes the alt reading to the new value and pushes in the select button. Nothing happens because the airplane is not in VNAV, but he does not see this since the FMA does not change, and he has no reason to make a callout. Again a delay until someone notices that something is wrong.

Pilots nowadays are almost automatons, incapable of thinking. The imposition of Airbus procedures on the Boeing operations does not help, and makes things less safe. Cut out the chatter and use the brain.