Narrative:

Having given the new approach procedures and call outs some time to see how they work; things are not getting better and crews are showing much confusion even with a complete briefing. The area of greatest confusion is what gets set in the altitude alert and what the go-around call outs would be. Being different on an ILS vs a visual versus a non-ILS is really causing great confusion. It's to the point now where pilots are joking about calling out everything in hopes of getting some right. The way it was previously where the settings and call outs were the same on every approach resulted in no confusion and good compliance. On this approach; a visual; even after a briefing on what to set and what to call out there was discussion between the pm and the bunkies when cleared for the visual as to what to set. During the briefing there was much unneeded discussion as to what to call out in the event of a go-around; 'set missed approach altitude' vs 'check missed approach altitude.'I witnessed this exact conversation/confusion on approach from the jumpseat on my commute home. Please change this ill-conceived procedural change back. Approach or missed approach is no place for such confusion and conversation. It seems to be occurring on every flight. I cannot find enough briefing to eliminate the issues on short final. I can only imagine the problem on an RNAV approach with a crew not resetting the altitude and not starting down. There are many places where the missed approach altitude and the gp intercept altitude are the same; [for example] pek and pvg. This is getting beyond distracting; a real procedurally induced safety conflict and for no safety benefit or improvement.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B777 Captain expressed concern that recent approach procedure SOP changes at his company are confusing and not as safe and efficient as past practices.

Narrative: Having given the new approach procedures and call outs some time to see how they work; things are not getting better and crews are showing much confusion even with a complete briefing. The area of greatest confusion is what gets set in the altitude alert and what the go-around call outs would be. Being different on an ILS vs a visual versus a non-ILS is really causing great confusion. It's to the point now where pilots are joking about calling out everything in hopes of getting some right. The way it was previously where the settings and call outs were the same on every approach resulted in no confusion and good compliance. On this approach; a visual; even after a briefing on what to set and what to call out there was discussion between the PM and the bunkies when cleared for the visual as to what to set. During the briefing there was much unneeded discussion as to what to call out in the event of a go-around; 'set missed approach altitude' vs 'check missed approach altitude.'I witnessed this exact conversation/confusion on approach from the jumpseat on my commute home. Please change this ill-conceived procedural change back. Approach or missed approach is no place for such confusion and conversation. It seems to be occurring on every flight. I cannot find enough briefing to eliminate the issues on short final. I can only imagine the problem on an RNAV approach with a crew not resetting the altitude and not starting down. There are many places where the missed approach altitude and the GP intercept altitude are the same; [for example] PEK and PVG. This is getting beyond distracting; a real procedurally induced safety conflict and for no safety benefit or improvement.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.