Was curious about something, over the past several months of watching countless youtube videos of both real world piloting and sim piloting, I hear the various call-outs on approach and departure.
Some of them are obvious (Positive rate, gear up) but others seem to be inconsistent in the videos I’ve seen so not sure which one is exactly right or what it means when they call out.
Does anyone have a list or know off the top of their head the various call outs, when you would use them and what they mean?
That would vary by region, industry and even the training school(s) attended. I’ve even known ex-military pilots who’ve caused confusion when they switched to civil jobs and used terms instinctively that only defense establishments use, totally befuddling both the CFI they were recertifying under or later in Crew Resource Management when the person next to them came out from an entirely civilian training pipeline.
I’d assume that there may even be differences between airline companies, as each one seems to have its own specific processes for lots of things. So lingo might be one of them.
Great question. Some calls like these may be based on operator / company procedures but the few you mentioned are somewhat common here in the US.
Stable - Airlines like to have a stabilized approach at a specific distance and/or altitude from the landing airport. This ensures you are configured properly and don’t have excessive altitude, speed, or an incorrect config. For some airlines that is 1,000’. It could vary but the main point is a good landing is the result of a stabilized approach, hence the “stable” or stabilized call.
For example, One LCA carrier in the US that I know of has a stabilized approach policy with specific guidelines for vertical speed, lateral course, vertical path, config, warnings & cautions, and speed at 1,000’ and again at 500’ AFE - Above Field Elevation.
“Minimums” - You will usually hear the GPWS system give the call here for “minimums” or “decision height/altitude”. On an instrument approach, this is the “decision” to make whether or not to continue the approach, or abort and commence a “missed approach” or “going missed”. This is a variable value but is set per approach, per runway.
“Continuing” - This will follow after the “minimums” call-out to determine what your intentions are. Continue if you have the runway environment in sight, or missed of you are going missed approach for whatever reason.
Now I want to have an Airplane! phraseology and voice pack! You hear this, Asobo? Big sales opportunity here: voice packs! I want e.g. Borat sitting next to me in the cockpit, telling me “very niiiiiiiice!”
I use FS2crew tool with my flights, and it adds some voices like I actually have a copilot with me with calls similar to those. But as everyone said, they vary and depending on the airline company and region, etc. I’m pretty much stuck with whatever FS2Crew tool give me.
It depends on the aircraft you fly, and then some operators will also change when they want the calls made.
Boeing says ‘positive rate, gear up’, Airbus says ‘positive climb, gear up’ for example.
Most airlines employ stable approach criteria, which means you are within certain parameters at 1000’ or sometimes 500’ above the runway height.
So, for Airbus again:
Speed +10/-5 VREF (landing speed)
Vertical speed maximum 1000’/m (sustained)
Bank angle less than 7 degrees
Pitch, maximum 10 degrees nose up, or 2.5 degrees nose down
Thrust is appropriate for the position
On the expected flight path and slope, and no major deviations or manoeuvres required to make the runway…
So for a typical instrument approach you will have:
At 2500’ Radio Alt: RadAlt alive / PF says ‘Checked’
At 1000’/500’ the Pilot Monitoring will call ‘1000’/500’ stable’ / PF says ‘Checked’
At 350’ the PF calls ‘Land’ or ‘Land Green’ / PM says ‘Checked’
At 100’ above the minima, the aircraft will announce ‘100 Above’ / PF says ‘Checked’
At the minima the aircraft will announce ‘Minimums’ - here is where the ultimate decision is made.
For our operation anyway:
If the Captain is flying we say ‘Continue’, or ‘Go around flaps’ if not visual
If the FO is flying the captain will say ‘Visual’, or ‘No contact’ if not visual,
then the PM will respond ‘Continue’ or ‘Go around flaps’ based on the captain’s call.
Differs a bit from airline to airline and between different aircraft types. According regulations an approach needs to be “stable” from at least 1000 ft in IMC or 500 ft when VMC, some airlines might use more strict “gates”, for example always being stable at 1000 ft above threshold. Being stable at 1000 ft except wings level when on a visual approach etc.
Callouts we use:
PM: “1000 ft, stabilized”, PF: “Continue”
PM: “500 ft, stabilized”, PF: “Continue”
Or instead when unstable:
PM: “1000 ft, unstable”, PF: “Go-around”
Minima:
PM: “Approaching Minimums”, PF: “Checked”
PM: “Minimums”, PF: “Landing” or “Go-around”
And at any time during the approach:
PM: “Approach lights / runway, … o’clock”
When visual (and able to remain visual) at an early stage:
PF: “Visual”
All further calls (except 500 / 1000 ft) are then omitted, the “landing” call is done at “500 ft”.
Other (sometimes weird) variations I have seen in my career:
PM only calling 1000 / 500 ft and the PF responding “Stabilized” or “Unstable go-around” which I find a bit odd as the PM has a better view on this as he isn’t occupied with flying the aircraft.
In previous company I worked for we the PM used to say: “500 ft stabilized” and the PF would respond with “Cleared / Standby” depending if landing clearance was received (or not).
Instead of “Approaching minimums” I have seen “hundred above" which is an odd call, especially on a non-precision approach where the PM is calling the DME distance versus altitude. I personally have seen cases where the PF increased rate of descent in response to the “hundred above call”.
I have worked for a company where we used “decide” instead of “minimums” which is British as I understand.
I have never worked for a company where we used “go”, it usually is silent unless something is wrong (“STOP” or “ABORT”). The commander lifts his hand from the thrust / power levers at the “V1” call, first of all so he doesn’t accidentally pulls them to idle due to a startling event such as a loud bang for example after V1, second as a non-verbal statement → we are now committed.
Although V1 is not actually a decision speed, it is often called as such, but it really is an “action speed”. The first action to abort must be taken at V1, meaning that at the V1 call you are already too late. Likely this is why “go” is not a good callout, “go” instead of what? Its all very theoretical but the “V-one” call should be made so that the callout is completed by the time the V1 speed has been reached.
So if your reaction speed is sufficiently quick you could take action to abort take-off at the beginning of the V1 call .
An old video? The V1 definition has changed over time. Lufthansa has more weird “own procedures” such as always beginning readback with callsign instead of ending with callsign. I don’t think “go” is a good callout as there isn’t an alternative, unless something clearly catastrophic is about to happen and take-off needs to be aborted after V1 with the risk of an overrun, take-off is always “go” at V1.
PANS doesn’t define the standard, it gives recommendations.
In German AIP GEN 3.4-9 states that direct replies/readbacks may be terminated by the callsign. It seems like there is just a common practice in German airlines (not just LH) to put this at the beginning.
It’d be great to have a worldwide common definition, but as you can see everyone creates their own standards. And as I said, according to the FAA for example, putting callsign first is explicitly correct.
But we’re off topic.
Contrary to ATC communication, cockpit callouts are even less internationally standardized and often result from learnings from incidents/accidents. Since crewmembers usually have had the same training, it’s just important that hey know the same rules.
Correct, although these recommended practices are there for a reason. What is directly applicable though is the Standardized European Rules of the Air (SERA) which also describes proper use of radiotelephony and mostly matches ICAO SARPS. It is therefore a bit weird that Germany has something written about radiotelephony in their eAIP at all. In any case it is non-standard in European skies, at least nobody else does it that way. All besides the point of having a “go” callout.
.