How should the crew callout 1,000 ft. prior to assigned altitude?

Lnafziger
  • How should the crew callout 1,000 ft. prior to assigned altitude? Lnafziger

    When climbing or descending in a multi-crew cockpit, most SOP's require a verbal callout at 1,000 ft. prior to the assigned altitude.

    I typically hear different callouts by different people:

    • "One to go"
    • "Six thousand for seven thousand"
    • "Six thousand climbing seven thousand"
    • "Six for seven"

    Is this just a personal preference kind of thing or is there an actual safety benefit to one or the other?

  • While I don't fly in a plane requiring more than one person, when there happens to be two pilots, such as one flying safety so the other can fly under the hood, I prefer the "1,000 feet remaining" or "1,000 remaining" call out. I don't really have some scientific reason for it, but it just seems more logical to me and easier to interpret.

  • As far as I know, there are no published FAA guidelines on it. An operator develops their SOP, and the FAA approves it, so whatever the SOP says is approved by the FAA.

    Ours is, "one thousand to go," by the pilot flying, and then, "nine thousand for ten thousand," responded by the pilot monitoring.

  • As Ralgha stated, this kind of callout would be included in the SOP. A couple I found in searching were the NBAA (same in their helicopter procedures by the way) and Angel Flight NE, as well as some generic CRM guides. The FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook also mentions altitude callouts, suggesting something like "two to go" and "one to go" (in thousands).

    The NBAA includes this specific phrasing:

    The callout is to include the altitude vacating and the assigned altitude i.e. “Six thousand for seven thousand” or “Flight level three-zero-zero for two-niner-zero”. After the PF makes this call, the PNF will verify and validate the call by stating “check”.

    This Flight Safety Digest mentions that USAir used to use the "two to go" and "one to go" phrasing, but opted to change this for the same that the NBAA uses. The new policy has the pilot flying make this call, since they are in control of the climb, and makes it more clear what the final altitude will be.

    The Flight Safety Foundation went in to a bit more detail about the "why" behind the callout. They mentioned that in their observations, the callout was sometimes not done due to workload of other more important things going on in approach/descent. They explain the benefit:

    This is not to suggest that the 1,000-ft callout is trivial. On the contrary, it ensures that both pilots concur about the altitude target, directs the attention of a flying pilot who might be distracted back to the impending level-off and draws both pilots’ attention to what the autopilot is supposed to be doing.

    Another resource that suggests the important is a report of an aircraft overshooting its altitude by 600 feet because the callout was missed. This report is in the ASRS database, report number 317750.

    I also found it referenced in this book about communication. They didn't really comment on it specifically, but used it as an example of how communication is critical. Specifically, the more exactly the terminology is defined, the more clear the communication will be.

Tags
Related questions and answers
  • When climbing or descending in a multi-crew cockpit, most SOP's require a verbal callout at 1,000 ft. prior to the assigned altitude. I typically hear different callouts by different people: "One to go" "Six thousand for seven thousand" "Six thousand climbing seven thousand" "Six for seven" Is this just a personal preference kind of thing or is there an actual safety benefit to one or the other?

  • Here are a few thoughts: 'Real' accidents happen much too seldom to be of any real measure, and they would have to be compensated for the number of passenger kilometers as well to be objective. Large airlines may have be involved in more accidents, but they have more aircraft. Many airlines low down on the reports had accidents many years ago. Avherald and the like may be good sources but emphasize that they don't report on all accidents. Different jurisdictions have different reporting requirements. What is a fair and unbiased method of measuring airline safety?

  • These are calculations which I use to know when to descend and the Rate: Multiply the ALT of feet to lose by 3 and $Groundspeed\div2\times10$ will give you your required rate of descent for a 3° glide slope. For example: FL350 to FL100 => 25,000 ft down $25\times3=75$, so start at 75 nm GS = 320 kts => $320\div2\times10=1,600$ => -1,600 fpm is your desired rate of descent. How do I calculate without using tangents for degrees, other than 3: 2,5; 4; 5 ...? In my last question I got it wrong, even though through math the answer was correct.

  • The Federal Flight Deck Officer page on Wikipedia says this: Under the FFDO program, flight crew members are authorized to use firearms. A flight crew member may be a pilot, flight engineer or navigator assigned to the flight. To me, it seems like this would be crucial information for the PIC to know, if their flight engineer (for example) was armed; but on the flip-side of this, the engineer might want to keep that to himself if he's with a crew he hasn't flown with before. Is there a guideline on whether an FFDO should inform the crew that he's armed?

  • If an autobrake setting is chosen prior to touchdown, but after touchdown and nosewheel compression (i.e. after the autobrake has engaged) a different setting is required, is it safe to change the setting during the roll-out? What happens when the setting is changed in this manner? I know application of manual brakes disables the autobrake. Does the autobrake immediately match the new deceleration requested?

  • Are airspace violations (e.g. entry to class B without clearance) based on primary radar and/or Mode C transponder, or something else? I read that Mode C altitude is based on pressure altitude, i.e., set to 29.92" ... but presumably that's adjusted at the ATC facility based on the current pressure before being used for altitude enforcement. This begs the question, what would stop one (hypothetically), just winding back the altimeter pressure reading to appear to be at a lower altitude? So to summarize: How are airspace violations detected: What data input is used? If Mode C reading

  • In a full motion Level C or D simulator like those used by the airlines and for jet type ratings: How should a pilot log the simulator time in their logbook? I.e. Can you log: Total Time Instru...

  • I realise that this question is very broad, but I intend it as an example to illustrate the actual costs incurred by a typical long-haul commercial flight. For this purpose of this question, I would assume the following: A380 or (modern) B747 in typical 3-class configuration Full occupancy 12 hours flight time (or more) Here are the cost position I can think of right now: Fuel Aircraft amortisation In-flight crew salaries Ground crew salaries (boarding crew, aircraft preparation and cleaning, luggage loading, etc.) Catering Various insurances Airport fees (landing tax, etc.) Overflight

  • Non-precision instrument approaches generally have altitude restrictions which get lower when you get closer to the airport. I always figured these restrictions were AMSL using the current altimeter... actually are (or, as most pilots prefer to think, you're lower than what your altimeter reads) Have a look at this VOR approach into Newark Most altitude restrictions are a minimum level, so you're free to fly higher if it's a particularly cold day. But have a look at LOCKI intersection, the final approach fix. That's at 1500 ft, not at-or-above. At -40, this will put you around 1100 ft above

  • I was looking through my virtual radar logs one of the days and found this "glitchy" ADS-B behavior. I am almost 100% sure that this is not due to my antenna or setup since two independent different radars confirmed this weird behavior from FlightRadar24. Also A/C before and after this one did not exhibit this behavior. Does anybody have any thoughts as to what may be happening??? Why is the "skew" at seemingly same angle? Is that anything? In light of MH370, does this happen often, how reliable is that GPS data? Tail # N657UA Boeing 767-300 Typical route between EGLL and KORD Time

Data information