Where are the rote memory procedural utterances?

[3WE]

How many times in severe VMC. The plane says minimums. The PF says landing…even though it’s not particularly informative?

But we smack a bird and “shit” is all we can say?

No: Bird? Continue? Windshield ok? Do you have visual?

We need better CRM and more memory checklist procedures.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/Vsma1uZM5oVeueug/?mibextid=qDwCgo

[bstolle]

If the approach is still stable and the PFs view is not too restricted, there's no need for any additional and distracting callout.
The only other callout in this situation would be 'go around'.
Don't know what kind of checklist you would expect in this case?

[3WE]

Ok…I tend towards sarcasm and EVan razzing, but also favor common sense…

So maybe no FORMAL memory checklist, but given the rather extensive list of expected and sometimes “blind” CRM “utterances”, my outsider, ass hat opinion might include the pilot flying saying, “Ok, I’m good” and the monitoring pilot glancing at windshields and engine instruments and saying “looks good”…

Again comparing this with “minimums…landing” during severe VMC, and the fact that the pictured flight crew was mostly silent even though the just lost some visibility and what if there were friends to Sully up the engines?

Thanks.

[Evan]

The correct formal procedure here to announce "Duck!" and then duck.

[Not_Karl]

The correct formal procedure here to announce "Duck!" and then duck.

As opposed to announce "Shit!" and then...


...wel, it could have been worse had they used other expletives...

[bstolle]

include the pilot flying saying, “Ok, I’m good” and the monitoring pilot glancing at windshields and engine instruments and saying “looks good”…

Again comparing this with “minimums…landing” during severe VMC....

I don't want to hear any non standard callout from either pilot in this case. If there is one, I assume it's due to a malfunction.
Since there is NO malfunction handling at this altitude, the only option is a go around. That's not what you want.

The 'landing' callout has nothing to do with being VMC and is only partially related to having the runway in sight.

[bstolle]

As opposed to announce "Shit!" and then...


...wel, it could have been worse had they used other expletives...

I'm pretty sure the 'shit' callout came from the guy sitting on the jump seat, so the result wouldn't be that bad.

[Gabriel]

As opposed to announce "Shit!" and then...


...wel, it could have been worse had they used other expletives...

That, my friend, was the best comment in a long time. Especially the small font.

[3WE]

The correct formal procedure here to announce "Duck!" and then duck.

Yes. That sounds reasonable.

[3WE]

I don't want to hear any non standard callout from either pilot in this case.

Except a nonstandard, visibility-modifying event which also has the potential for a non standard, significant power reduction, might call for a quick review of the situation with the guy flying, continuing to fly (standard procedure), and the monitoring pilot assessing and reporting on the non-standard event.

The 'landing' callout has nothing to do with being VMC and is only partially related to having the runway in sight.

You are missing the point, there’s a lot of call outs that- while they are a good idea- are painfully obvious. Yeah, sometimes people go stupid, so make the callout…

But if we are going to call out obvious crap, it seems like a few words about the flying pilots visibility, the heath of the airplane and confirming that we don’t want to go around when you just almost took out a windshield or engine might be reasonable.

[Evan]

Except a nonstandard, visibility-modifying event which also has the potential for a non standard, significant power reduction,

Which makes landing a pretty sound idea.

[Evan]

Here is a real-life example of standard bird strike callouts:

15:27:10.4 HOT-1 birds.
15:27:11 HOT-2 whoa.
15:27:11.4 CAM [sound of thump/thud(s) followed by shuddering sound]
15:27:12 HOT-2 oh shit!
15:27:13 HOT-1 oh yeah.
15:27:13 CAM [sound similar to decrease in engine noise/frequency begins]
15:27:14 HOT-2 uh oh.

[3WE]

Which makes landing a pretty sound idea.

As long as you can still see…(all the words matter, right?)

[Evan]

As long as you can still see…(all the words matter, right?)

Well. in a one-duck scenario there are four eyes in the cockpit but you can continue with two inop (or maybe three).
I mean, nobody is coming along to squeegee that window and you have to land sometime.
Maybe airplanes should have washer fluid...

[bstolle]

1. Except a nonstandard, visibility-modifying event which also has the potential for a non standard, significant power reduction..

2....a quick review of the situation with the guy flying, continuing to fly (standard procedure), and the monitoring pilot assessing

3. and reporting on the non-standard event.[/B]


4. You are missing the point, there’s a lot of call outs that- while they are a good idea- are painfully obvious. Yeah, sometimes people go stupid, so make the callout…

1. Aaah, like e.g. heavy rain. Thinking about it, for this one case, there actually is a callout: Wipers please.

2. This obviously did happen, otherwise point 3 would apply.

3. See point 2. If there's no change, there's nothing to say. From own multiple bird experiences I can tell you that you really really hope that no callout/comment comes from the guy sitting next to you, because it would mean that you are in trouble.

4. Don't understand that one.