Originally Posted by
Guppydriver95
It SHOULD be standard, yes. The reason for briefing it at the start of a trip is to reinforce and bring to top of mind, much like an engine failure. Multiple human factors studies have shown the benefit of performance in these scenarios if they were briefed vs the lazy “standard brief” nonsense.
Originally Posted by
Hotel Kilo
Why do we brief? Decades of CRM and human factors analysis and studies indicate that pilots sharing the same mental model is a tremendous benefit to execution. That's why we brief.
What would non brief email brief cowboys do when getting a line check?
It's our procedure. It's spelled out in our guidance and reenforced in our training and standards checks. It doesn't take long and the brief really does have purpose and benefits that are scientifically proven and supported by operational analysis of events.
to be clear my gripe with aborts is they are NOT standard. Who does what changes every time an FO goes to work. The CA designates who does what and what they want. The FO has to change their roles every week. Like a v1 cut, it should be standard every time.
briefing them is fine, they should be standard. The long winded briefs is what I was initially talking about. Like how we will taxi and where after the RTO. but my main issue is the lack of standardization in what should be a very standardized event.
the only thing that should be changing IMO is the CA should make the PA on a 2 pilot crew and the relief pilot should make it on an augmented crew
Guppy: are UA aborts standard? Like who says what and who does what?