B737 Speedbrake use question
 

When you use speedbrake, do you make or is it recommended to make general call out such as 'speedbrake flight detent' ?
The company I fly for, making too many 'check' callouts and 'yes sirs' inside cockpit which really is ridiculous. Even emphasize things that are not mentioned in POM. When I watch videos on youtube and I do not see procedures too much complicated on foreign carriers. Dont know why.

Also, can we only use speedbrake when throttle is ARM or you are descending with level change?
Last time on my simulator session, FMC message popped up stating 'Drag Required' and noticed throttle was all the way down at IDLE.

Your comments and ideas will be greatly appreciated,

Why would you use the speedbrake with thrust levers in a position other than idle in a descent? Besides stopping the aircraft from exceeding Mmo/Vmo of course.
During a VNAV PTH//SPD or LVL CHG descend, it is normal to have the autothrottle channel FMA announce ARM (after RETARD). You use the speedbrake to increase deceleration rate in a level segment, increase rate of an idle descent or help the aircraft decelerate faster at a fixed V/S (generally not more than 800 fpm below 250 kts).

As for callouts, it depends on the company. You may like it or not, but as long as those are in the OMB or whatever it is called over there in the US, you should stick to them. If you have a case against it, raise it to whoever is of concern. Where I work we don't have such callouts, we don't have "speed check and flaps X set" for the PM either.

Speedbrake (SB)
 

Unfortunately there are some "managements" that seem to think the more 'advisory' comments made by each pilot, the better is the CRM. So in the end it becomes a competition of subtle point scoring. This can be irritating.

"Mitigating future threats" is another motherhood statement that gets right up the nose of some pilots. Boeing use the term 'Verify' and that implies you don't have to articulate - you simply use your eyes.

I remember observing a Japanese check captain sitting at the back of a 737 simulator quietly observing a series of assessment circuits on candidates that had applied for a job in his airline. None of the pilots being tested knew each other and most came from different countries and different airlines with different procedures. It didn't help that the English language skill of the Japanese assessor was poor.

During one circuit the chap in the left seat as PF wasn't flying very well and his PM in the right seat thought he needed coaching. The PM was an Eastern European who could not resist "advising" the bewildered South American PF from the beginning of the downwind leg of the circuit until the end of the landing roll. Most of the time the PM was talking so fast in accented English that the poor bugger in the left seat hadn't a clue what he was saying yet wasn't game to tell him to shut up in front of the Japanese assessor.

As the simulator operator I had to button my lip although I was sorely tempted to say for goodness sake back-off and let the PF fly the aeroplane. Bit it wasn't my train set and it was up to the Japanese checkie to run the show. After the landing we went for a coffee break. On the side I commented to the check captain that I thought that PM was a bit too voluble and in fact may have distracted the PF who was having enough trouble flying the simulator. To my astonishment, the Japanese assessor whose English was very limited, and clearly didn't have a clue what the PM was gabbling about, smiled broadly and said he thought the PM was showing excellent CRM by the amount of advice he was offering to the PF.

The PM was hired by the Japanese operator and I pitied the pilots he would be flying with. The inevitable happened and three months later the PM was sacked after numerous complaints from the Japanese captains he flew with that they were distracted by his non-stop "advice" on how to fly the 737.

There are times when silence is golden. Unfortunately it seems to be a rare commodity on today's flight decks..

No. If you're the PF, you do it and then announce from the FMA (if that's your SOP). Speedbrakes do not need to be called; that's what the other pilot has eyeballs for, if he/she hasn't already noted that some energy destruction is now required.

If you're the PNF/PM, you don't do anything unless told to by the PF eg flaps, gear (or unless covered by SOPs such as switchery after reaching some trigger/flow action point).

Silent dark cockpits = good.

Not sure about the rights or wrongs of announcing "Speed Brake", but please keep your hand on the lever all the time when using them.
Also, why isn't there an interlock between power levers and speed brake levers so that if power is applied the speed brakes are stowed?
(I am thinking of the 1995 Cali B757 accident.)

Because at high altitude when you hit a wind shear or mountain wave and the speed starts moving rapidly toward Mmo, you need to use the speed brakes to slow instead of ripping the throttles toward idle. I've seen it done the other way, and it isn't pretty.

Sorry, I was not implying any speedbrake call from the FMA. That was directed at things that the PM might not see/realise has happened eg button pushes into different autoflight modes. A speedbrake call on the other hand is ridiculous.

Been in the game for 30+ years and I still do this. Too easy to forget they're out, especially when one is slow. Always remember a incident writeup in Flight International years ago where a 757 landed heavily with the boards out. Boeing said "it's annunciated on the XXX panel, why would we need to have any other warning?". "Hands On speedbrake lever until stowed" was then mentioned.

I always announce "Speed brake flight detent" anytime I use it. For me it is just a crm matter and also to involve the PM in the action. Here is the reason: usually we use the speedbrake to catch up a descent path for being too high (i.e we have an extra total energy) or instructed by atc to expedite descent. In both cases our workload can increase rapidly especially during arrival/approach (starting to configure the aircraft, complying with speed or altitude restriction, ...) so when we remove our hand from the speedbrake lever to the mcp to set a new speed or altitude then setting the altimeter when passing the transition level we may forget to bring our hand back to the speedbrake lever. And since the PM is "actively" involved he/she will be more aware about the speedbrake position.

As for using speedbrake and opening thrust at the same time I can't see the reason unless during an emergency descent + need of using engine anti-ice at the same time. In normal operation, it is like braking and accelerating at the same time. You will waste fuel, energy and put an unnecessary load on the aircraft structure.

Unless you enjoy unplanned descents...

There could always be an auto-stowed at certain TLA or N1. If the jet was overspeeding, the TLA would be likely below or moving to a lower power setting with the A/T on.

Also on the A300 and I think all modern airliners for the Go Around situation.

Dixi

And also the B737.

My apologies about misunderstanding inboard and outboard. Obviously it's the inboard hand that does everything from speed brake to FCU. The advice to include Memo was in general not specifically you. Surely you must be doing it already.

Airbus guys: Wouldn’t it be more logical to call “left roll”, “right roll”, “pitch up”, etc. while flying as the other guy can’t see what you're doing with the side-stick but he can with the airbrakes..?

(Only slightly TIC)

You can use the speed brakes at any time to increase ROD, and or reduce speed. With turbulence speed reduction you can use speed brake without reducing power by going manual thrust and allowing the speed brakes to reduce the speed to avoid a low power condition at high altitude. Should all be in your SOP manual though?

I have flown with airlines where very little is said except to point out something going wrong. Not when things are normal. Good example,
Airline 1 "Set Power. Setting power. Power Set, Speed Building, 80 Knots, Indications Normal etc etc
Airline 2 "Set Power, Power Set. 80 knots....... V1 (only if indications were not normal would it be said)
During approach in airline 2 almost nothing is said unless something deviates from what is expected. Except obvious ones like OM height for example and standard SOP calls like 1000 ft.
With airline 2 if anyone speaks when it is not expected, everyone jumps to attention. In Airline 1 you could start saying the Lords Prayer during takeoff and nobody would notice the difference in the droning sound from PM!

While on this subject about verbose rhetoric on the flight deck, Briefings!!
Some airlines give monologue briefings which drone on and on and cover everything that could possibly happen including all the stuff that you know is going to happen. Ive seen PM secretly reading txt messages on iPhone during these.
Others use a much abbreviated form in the a Q&A style. Which works wonders at keeping the other crew awake.
"On this take off we will use Reduced Thrust. In the event of RTO I will close the thrust levers, monitor auto brake, apply full reverse. What will you do?
On approach. I willl fly the ILS to R/W 27. What is the QDM and OM height? Good. What is the safety height to the NW? In a go around I will blah blah blah. What are your actions. What is the go around routing?
The questions are interspersed at random so that both pilots are involved and sharing the load and it avoids the briefing becoming a lecture falling on dear ears.
Night to all and safe flying.
Yan
I once in Bilbao (training) briefed the trainee on our departure but made it up - complete gobbledegook. He nodded wisely and said YesSir. We then started again gently with asking him to listen attentively and to interject if something didn't sound quite right.

When this came up at a well known airline recently, the view from management was that senior captains would not like to be asked questions by a junior FO. That's the whole fecking point!
It levels the authority gradient, involves both pilots on an equal basis, avoids boring briefings and if the briefing is kept to things that actually matter and are "different" at this particular airport, then all will benefit.
Cheers
Yan

Re: briefing. Up until the point where the "we've been here before" brigade make an example of themselves similar to AC in SFO or that water bomber 737 in the Carribean. If we can grow out of the resentment against formal protocols, there is good intrinsic value to full briefings at home base. One thorough briefing a day keeps the AAIB away. Indeed the real fight is to keep them short and effective.
[/off-topic]