|
Callouts frenzy
Hello,
I work at a large european outfit, and apparently the authorities are monitoring us on a few topics, one of which being the use of standard callouts. And two other details of the same level, which is, for starters, rather reassuring about the overall level of safety that we have. I would worry if the authority would reproach us with departing with no-go MEL items or covering them up in order to do the same, not respecting crew rest times, or that type of things that can happen even in some well-known airlines. Now that the debate is put into context, let's start. Apparently there are many of us (including me) who will use both natural language and standard callouts to communicate in the cockpit, but the authority does not like us using natural language where a standard callout exists. At this stage, it needs to be clarified that we all speak the same language as mothertongue, it's not a multicultural outfit where common standard callouts could constitute an effective way of breaking the language barrier that would exist. It is a requirement for hire to speak the same language as everyone else, and all crew including cabin do speak the same, even if some pilots were a bit behind at the time of hire (equivalent of level 5 instead of 6) they will learn to be perfectly fluent in a few months, so that I never encountered once a pilot that did not deserve a level 6 in our common language. Why don't they like natural language ? Now, let me clarify that we don't pack up all callouts together and put them in the trash as soon as we learnt them, nor am I advocating for that. Rather, we use both callouts and natural language, one or the other first, depending on what we think is the best suited for the specific situation. For example, if natural language comes first, we don't restrain ourselves to use it. There is even a sentence in the OM that goes towards that direction. If it doesn't work the first time, we can switch to callouts. And vice versa, if the standard callout doesn't work the first time, we can switch to natural language (and the step further is touching the person's shoulder to bring them back into focus). Spoiler alert, the first try, callout or natural language, works 99% of the time. I can remember only once in my few year-carreer when a "natural language callout" didn't work and the callout used in second intention did. (However the fact that my colleague didn't understand the first time put him in a receptive state to my comments, because he knew I had something to say that he had not understood, so I believe it still helped) But in my opinion, I feel like standard callouts have a few disadvantages over natural language. The following : 1 - They are concise, but sometimes too much concise. They do not carry meaning beyond what is included in the OM. 2 - Since they are so short, sometimes just one syllable ("LOC", "speed"..), they can easily have multiple meanings. 3 - Since the meaning they carry is the one included in the OM, they require external knowledge to be used, and understood properly. 4 - There isn't a callout for everything. Let's get into some more details for each of the points. Sorry for a very lengthy post ! 1 - The first point is not the worst, but a callout is just.. short. If I say just one syllable in the cockpit, I might not be heard the first time. In order to be heard first time, I need to say it in a more agressive manner. Louder and more firmly. It's not so bad but I feel like it degrades somewhat the CRM to say some words in an agressive manner. You've now read most of the content and I thank you for that.- Also, if they're so short, they don't carry an "attention getter" with them. If my PF has missed an important flight parameter that he's not monitoring, it's gonna take probably more than a single word (at least in some cases) to bring him back in the loop ? 2 - What enhances the two previous problems is that many of them can have multiple meanings. For example, "LOC", "speed" are both the standard callout for pointing out a deviation, but also the standard callout when the related mode engages. Imagine that the PF is cleared for approach very late, while on a converging track to the ILS. He/she forgets to activate the LOC mode (and/or it's not clear whether he/she is going to use it) and the PM says "LOC". If the PF thinks the LOC mode is engaging, he's not going to do anything and the airplane will burst through the localizer and the resulting flight path will be undesired. However, if the PM says "careful, you need to turn" or "careful, the airplane won't turn", or anything like that, there is no ambiguity at all. - Even if the callout is understood for the correct meaning, it still carries less meaning than natural language would do. And its area of applicability is smaller than natural language. For example, if the PF is flying manually while doing something else (on this example, we had an ATHR failure during a sim session), and if he forgets to increase thrust at the end of a voluntary speed reduction, if I only use standard callouts, theoretically as PM I have to wait until the speed is 5kt below the desired speed, because that's when this callout is used according to its definition, then say "speed", then the PF will look back at the speed, and decide on the course of action. If I decide to use natural language, I can wait only until it's becoming clear that the PF has missed the thrust increase, and say something like "you're lacking thrust" "be careful it's still slowing down", and the little bonus here is that I can even use very neutral wordings that will preserve the PF's ego, which is useful for CRM, IMHO. For example "speed is getting there" (About the PF's ego, just one callout won't change anything, but imagine how a tired guy with a big ego would behave after a chaotic approach where you used 10-15 callouts, making clear he messed up, instead of natural language that let him believe you just helped and he did okay-ish) So the natural language wording can be used earlier, and also obviously it can carry the direction of the correction to make. If I say "speed" you don't know if you need more or less thrust. So the correction needs extra steps. If I say "you should increase thrust" you know which direction your arm will go. 3 - Then, third but certainly not least, they require external knowledge to be used effectively. When you talk about "speed" or "loc", the external knowledge isn't incredibly difficult to grasp and remember, but conceptually, in the pilot's brain, after having received a stimulus (and being receptive to it), the stimulus will launch a decision process. This decision process can go through varying steps. Obvious decisions will trigger an almost automatic response. Complex ones will launch a lenghtier process which will sometimes translate into a DODAR or equivalent. 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. - 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 ? - Worse, sometimes, the callouts or standard wordings that we use directly contradicts the natural language and intuition. For example on my previous A320 fleet, we said "briefing" when what we really meant was "briefing block" (which starts with the glareshield). It took me very long to engrave in my "muscle memory" that when the guy next to me asks for "briefing" he doesn't really want a briefing, he wants me to start with the glareshield. Even after 2-3 years, I still felt tempted to start the briefing when directed for a briefing ! (How surprising ?!). However, when being directed for the glareshield, the number of times I did, or even thought of starting the briefing (which is incorrect at this stage) is.. you guessed it, exactly zero. 4 - There isn't a callout for every situation. For example, if you encounter a "loss of braking" on the runway at landing, what will you say ? On A320 type, there is a memory item, you can say "loss of braking", that's exactly what's expected and it doesn't cause a problem whatsoever. Very good. What if you're in a Boeing outfit ? With a pilot that never heard the phrase "loss of braking" as a callout ? What about a situation that's not in the scope of this callout ? For example, you are landing, the autobrake fails. On airbus fleets, I think there is a callout for that "autobrake off" from the PM or "manual braking" from the PF (but it's been there only for a few years compared to 30+ years of A320 safely flying). What if you're on a boeing fleet ? If, as PF, I read the failure title on the EICAS, I'm going to say "autobrake". Just one word nothing else. As PM, especially on a short runway, I would swiftly react "brake, brake" (in our language the one-word equivalent is unambiguous as being a verb in the imperative form, contrarily to english where "brake" can be mistaken for a noun, because that's also a problem, callouts are in english and english is sometimes less precise than other languages). So, as PF, what I said when faced with this situation was "it isn't braking, I'm using my feet". The sentence informs in a few more words that there is an autobrake failure and that it is currently being managed and the risk of runway excursion is mitigated. Many things that the single callout "autobrake" does not. By the way, I wonder why as PF I should read something on the EICAS, but that's what I've been told. All of the above was inspired by some comments I received during my last sim session. If the TRI's at my airline want me to bark single words, I'll bark single words, but I'm trying to take a step back. (Most people would not care about such details, because they are, but I do) I guess my point is pretty clear at this point, I'm not talking about putting all callouts and standardized communication to trash, but rather not doing the opposite. I'm advocating (as of now) for not trashing all natural language in a cockpit, and rather use a more balanced approach. Does this entire reasoning look/sound rather stupid or rather logical/realistic ? If most people here say it's stupid I will forget it. If most people say it makes sense, I may rephrase and forward my question to the appropriate person. Was there once a plane that crashed because the crew did not use a proper callout but used natural language instead ? Thank you |
Apparently there are many of us (including me) who will use both natural language and standard callouts to communicate in the cockpit, but the authority does not like us using natural language where a standard callout exists. |
Shut up gringo…
|
The PF is always checking his PFD so if the PM calls “speed” he should know immediately if he needs to increase or decrease the thrust.
I know 2 cases in my outfit where non standard call out put the aircraft in an undesirable situation: 1: The PF who was a TRE with a poor english called or should I say mumbled “ speed Two Five Zero” with a brand new trainee at acceleration altitude. The PM heard “ Flaps zero”. He asked the TRE” Are you sure..?” The PF was annoyed and firmly replied “ YES!” And the PM retracted the flaps well below S speed. They fired him… 2: During approach, the PF armed the approach and called FMA, “ CAT 2” but did not pronounced it very clearly and the PM understood “flaps 2 “ and set flaps 2. Luckily the speed was below VFE. I’m all in for being flexible but Airbus made a good job at designing a list of very few standard call outs. Working in an environment with crew coming from many different countries, I think it’s important to stick as much as possible to the standard call out for smooth operations and to avoid confusion. This also applies talking to the ground mechanic, cabin crew or ATC. Sometimes you fly with guys and ATC will call them back half of the times cause they are unable or they do not make any effort to speak or read back properly ( eg speak too fast, non standard phraseology or mumble) the ATC clearance. And then they get annoyed that ATC calls them again… Lol. |
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.
|
Having checked the lenght of this post, is not a matter of callouts it's your verbosity matter.
|
You can skip indented part which just goes into details, if you want to be quick
Originally Posted by Rug
(Post 11858267)
Stopped reading at this point.
Originally Posted by blind pew
(Post 11858270)
Shut up gringo…
Do you indeed never use english sentences in the cockpit ?
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 11858306)
The PF is always checking his PFD so if the PM calls “speed” he should know immediately if he needs to increase or decrease the thrust.
I know 2 cases in my outfit where non standard call out put the aircraft in an undesirable situation: 1: The PF who was a TRE with a poor english called or should I say mumbled “ speed Two Five Zero” with a brand new trainee at acceleration altitude. The PM heard “ Flaps zero”. He asked the TRE” Are you sure..?” The PF was annoyed and firmly replied “ YES!” And the PM retracted the flaps well below S speed. They fired him… 2: During approach, the PF armed the approach and called FMA, “ CAT 2” but did not pronounced it very clearly and the PM understood “flaps 2 “ and set flaps 2. Luckily the speed was below VFE. I’m all in for being flexible but Airbus made a good job at designing a list of very few standard call outs. Working in an environment with crew coming from many different countries, I think it’s important to stick as much as possible to the standard call out for smooth operations and to avoid confusion. This also applies talking to the ground mechanic, cabin crew or ATC. Sometimes you fly with guys and ATC will call them back half of the times cause they are unable or they do not make any effort to speak or read back properly ( eg speak too fast, non standard phraseology or mumble) the ATC clearance. And then they get annoyed that ATC calls them again… Lol. Thank you for providing two other exemples. First one : the pf could have answered the second time "yes increase speed two fifty (knots)" and there would. have been zero ambiguity. Second one : that illustrates a limitation of callouts but it's difficult to solve the issue here, the issue rather lies with the pm. I wonder why you say callouts avoid confusion after giving two examples where they, on the contrary, caused great confusion ? Also you talk about ATC, mechanics.. it's not the same, the wording cannot be standardized as much because they don't work for the same entities. And, if standardized language was sufficient to effectively communicate in aviation, ICAO english tests would not include a natural language testing. Which they do.. |
Shut up gringo
Twas the last thing on the cvr on a 747 before it hit two mountain tops whilst going into Madrid when the GPWS went off in 1983 with pull up terrain in a synthesised yank voice..Spanish speaking Avianca captain.
|
Probably one of those things where, assessed across the entire ICAO-sphere of crews from the big expat-hiring airlines (i.e. where you're operating with a different person from a different former airline, different country and different first language every single flight) callouts measurably improve safety.
When assessed across a smaller airline where all the pilots speak the same language and have all gone through a similar training and induction scheme, they may be less helpful. But I'd still suggest you use them. This stuff is studied and researched quite thoroughly. |
Originally Posted by CVividasku
(Post 11858400)
I wonder why you say callouts avoid confusion after giving two examples where they, on the contrary, caused great confusion ? The call out to the mechanic by Airbus is written black and white: “ Ready for push” “ Brakes released, ready to push”“ Brakes set” “ clear to disconnect”. It’s not “ Parking brake ON” or “ 2 good engines start show me the pin ” or whatever weird call outs some guys invent. In my outfit we fly to places where people can barely align 2 words in english so strict adherence to the standard call outs is quite important for smooth and safe operation. I personally don’t care what the pilots next to me say as long as I can clearly understand him. But I think it’s not very difficult to use the Airbus call outs. Almost 11 years using them. They work just fine. |
|
CVividasku, it seems to me that the four problems you identify are actually problems with the standard callouts, which would be better addressed to the creator of the standards – I’m sure there must be a forum for that – rather than reasons to use non-standard callouts.
To your fourth point: if there isn’t a callout for everything, then – (a) surely nobody can fault you for a non-standard callout when there’s no standard; (b) if there’s a confusion between A’s and B’s standard callouts, that would seem to be a potential safety issue, since pilots transfer so often between A and B aircraft, and it should be addressed between A and B and the putative forum mentioned above (although I do understand the difficulty of doing that). Finally, it may seem fine to use natural-language callouts within your outfit, where everyone may understand them, but there’s a high probability of difficulty if you transfer from your outfit to another, or if you forget to use ICAO-speak instead of “natural language” when talking to people outside your outfit, such as to ground staff or in ATC communications. USAans are often castigated here on Pprune for using what they fondly think is “natural language” but which is easily misunderstood by others. |
I have sympathy for using natural language in flight deck communications but agree with others that where a standard call is required, it should be used in the way it is detailed in the OM/FCOM/QRH. You wouldn’t replace “STOP!” with “I’d really like you to think about bringing the aircraft to a halt, please?” but at the same time, avoiding the need for a call and/or raising awareness by catching a developing trend early like “looks like the speed’s dropping as the tailwind picks up” is good CRM in my book.
As professional pilots, we know and expect the standard instructions/challenges/responses in all phases of flight, so shouldn’t feel that “Flaps 5” is rude if there is no please or thank you associated with it. |
Originally Posted by Lascaille
(Post 11858462)
Probably one of those things where, assessed across the entire ICAO-sphere of crews from the big expat-hiring airlines (i.e. where you're operating with a different person from a different former airline, different country and different first language every single flight) callouts measurably improve safety.
When assessed across a smaller airline where all the pilots speak the same language and have all gone through a similar training and induction scheme, they may be less helpful. But I'd still suggest you use them. This stuff is studied and researched quite thoroughly. Why want to impose a method on an Airline for which it may not be that useful ? Again, not only do we all speak the same language, also 99% of pilots do not leave for other airlines. They either retire or lose their medical (95% of the departures, and very few get fired for below-standard skills, and very few decide to quit to do something else) So the argument of moving to another airline does not apply either. Regarding ground crew and atc, of course it's better to stay standard. I would never advocate the right to acknowledge a takeoff clearance in other words than required. But it's also a matter of how much you want to go into detail and how demanding is too demanding .. if pilots sometimes say "mayday mayday mayday, [callsign] [atc center], etc ." instead of the opposite, is it something worth to monitor the company specifically upon ? Does it decrease safety ? |
Thank you for clarifying the story about the gringo who needed to shut up.
If someone disregarded a gpws call out, I don't think it has anything to do with the matter. Maybe that guy always reacted perfectly with his company call out when faced with the same warning, in the SIM. It is more a matter of situational awareness and or respect of procedures.
Originally Posted by FullWings
(Post 11858609)
I have sympathy for using natural language in flight deck communications but agree with others that where a standard call is required, it should be used in the way it is detailed in the OM/FCOM/QRH. You wouldn’t replace “STOP!” with “I’d really like you to think about bringing the aircraft to a halt, please?” but at the same time, avoiding the need for a call and/or raising awareness by catching a developing trend early like “looks like the speed’s dropping as the tailwind picks up” is good CRM in my book.
I don't support throwing away all call outs, for example the STOP is typically the one that is very well designed, that is not ambiguous, that is very intuitive to understand. It's probably the best one out there I also think it's good CRM to actively monitor and avoid deviation call outs by saying something else earlier. However, that is what I did and that is exactly what I was criticised for by the TRI. I don't support throwing away anything in facts. I'm just questioning the message I received, which is to use as little natural language as possible. |
2 - What enhances the two previous problems is that many of them can have multiple meanings. For example, "LOC", "speed" are both the standard callout for pointing out a deviation, but also the standard callout when the related mode engages. Imagine that the PF is cleared for approach very late, while on a converging track to the ILS. He/she forgets to activate the LOC mode (and/or it's not clear whether he/she is going to use it) and the PM says "LOC". If the PF thinks the LOC mode is engaging, he's not going to do anything and the airplane will burst through the localizer and the resulting flight path will be undesired. However, if the PM says "careful, you need to turn" or "careful, the airplane won't turn", or anything like that, there is no ambiguity at all. I fly for a solidly english speaking airline and we stick with standard callouts. They work, use them. If there is no callout for a situation then get your point across some other way, but if there's a standard call, just use it. |
On Boeing planes, the PM calls the FMA modes ;)
|
1) I’d say that when the authority or a TRE/TRI gets to that level of feedback then it’s time to realise they have a firm grasp of the non-essential so you can sit back and say “Oh I see”, and go about your operation. Why can’t authority inspectors/TRE/TRIs ever seem to realise the damage they do to their own reputation when they come up with stuff like this? It just makes you look foolish and superfluous. Why not just say “great job, high standard, keep it up!”? :rolleyes:
2) As for natural language - two things: A) if I hear a briefing starting with “Right so time for a quick briefing if that’s okay with you? So big picture stuff, this flight is going to be a left hand seat departure using standard company calls and procedures….” I will automatically switch off because the colleague is speaking many words out loud without actually saying anything at all. A true skill. :ugh: B) I have noticed a habit for native English speakers to lay on thick the natural language when speaking to non-native English speaking ground crew/ATC ESPECIALLY after they say “say again”. “Say again” doesn’t mean “please repeat what you said with many more words and phrases that I will now have to translate in my head whilst under time pressure in a noisy environment”. It means “I did not understand - say it again more clearly and slowly to give me a chance”. In this case Standard Callout only. :ok: BD |
I’m curious. Which particular standard call-outs would you dispose of in favour of natural language?
I sympathise with the idea of natural language because robotic standard call outs dehumanises the job. On the other hand robotic standard call outs have proved to be unambiguous and good triggers. Which is their whole point, no? |
Originally Posted by CVividasku
(Post 11859000)
On Boeing planes, the PM calls the FMA modes ;)
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.