How do I use a Checklist: Thread# 3,254,682 [Archive]

MakeItHappenCaptain

15th Dec 2012, 18:58

From the video poster's comments on youtube;
FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT FLY THE KING AIR OR OTHER TURBOPROP, SINGLE PILOT PROCEDURES REQUIRED A FLOW AND THEN THE CHECKLIST. HERE SOME CHECKLIST ARE NOT READ AND DO.

THE ENGINE START PROCEDURE HAS TO BE MADE BY SOME MEMORY ITEMS THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACT THE STARTER, FUEL, PUMPS, ECS, ETC, WHILE READING THE CKECKLIST. (IF SOME DOUBTS ABOUT THIS, PLEASE READ THE KING AIR 90 CHECKLIST ENGINE START PROCEDURE).

YOU CAN SEE THAT AFTER THE ENGINE HAS STARTED AND EVERYTHING LOOKS OK, I READ THE CHECKLIST TO VERIFY THE FEW STEPS I MADE BEFORE.

THEN THE WHITE BOOK I READ ARE SOME NOTES THAT I HAVE FOR MY GPS DATA, AND I KNOW A LOT OF PILOTS HAVE SOME.

THE NEWSPAPER YOU CAN SEE, IS NOT FOR ME, I BOUGHT IT FOR MY BOSS THAT I WAS PREPARING TO BRING IT HOME!

Atlas Shrugged

15th Dec 2012, 21:46

Not in the flows, but missed 2, if not 3 CHECKLISTS! (which I thought was the point of the thread)

The point of the thread is that a checklist is just that - a CHECK list, not a "to-do" list.

:ok:

morno

15th Dec 2012, 23:19

I'm with Howard, the dude only pulled out the checklist once. What happened to pulling it out after he'd completed his pre-start flow?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is not how to use a checklist, :ok:.

And I say that with about 2,000hrs on King Air's.

morno

megle2

16th Dec 2012, 02:12

No use saying he missed things if you don't list the checklist and items missed Maybe he has one continuous checklist without subsections
I'm pretty sure he checked the "urn" was on, that's pretty important

Howard Hughes

16th Dec 2012, 02:43

The point of the thread is that a checklist is just that - a CHECK list, not a "to-do" list.
A 'checklist' is neither, if you don't use it! :E

Mach E Avelli

16th Dec 2012, 03:34

Any checklist that requires a pilot, particularly single pilot, to go "heads down" checking items on the pedestal like pressurization and TCAS while taxying is a deficient checklist. In the video, this guy was fiddling around with his head down quite a bit. I was waiting for him to run off the taxiway.
It is easy enough to redesign the King Air checklist (any checklist for that matter)to incorporate all the essential stuff into before start and after start phases, i.e. before taxying, leaving only a couple of items to be done after run up or approaching the active runway.
Also, non killer items like lights and transponders etc can be safely omitted from the checklist and simply memorised as a scan, so maybe that's what this guy was doing. If you forget to select the transponder you get a 'please explain' from ATC these days, so by the time you have filed all the grovelling paperwork it is fairly certain that you will never forget it again. Ditto for cancelling SARwatch, though this appears on many checklists . For the memory-impaired, I suppose.
Light aircraft 'factory' checklists are sometimes written in a 'how to' format e.g. the details to start engines are there just to cover the manufacturer's arse if some owner pilot who flies 50 hours a year screws it up.

Icarus2001

16th Dec 2012, 03:40

If you forget to select the transponder you get a 'please explain' from ATC these days, Not a great deal of help in G airspace, non controlled airport. Me inbound in jet using TCAS to help build the picture and Kingair mate blasts off relying on ATC to remind him to do his job properly.

Mach E Avelli

16th Dec 2012, 03:48

Fair enough, but assuming that our hero has got on the radio before departure, everyone should know roughly where he is. Relying on the other guy's TCAS is frought. My bugsmasher is not required to have a transponder, but I do make the usual taxi call and old farmer Joe in his 172 will usually say something, even if not the perfect phraseology.
Non selection of transponder and lights is slack, even poor airmanship. But these days the thinking is to reduce checklist content - maybe not to killer only but certainly to essential only.

morno

16th Dec 2012, 04:05

New Checklist Invention Could Take The Paperwork Out Of Pre-Flight | Aero-News Network (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=a501308f-f5a3-4548-9a40-45e4b1be2311#)

These are perfect for single pilot ops. I just can't find the website for more info.

Single pilot, you shouldn't be doing heads down checks during a taxi. That's what the park brake is for!

There's no excuse for not using a checklist. But doing the checks in a flow pattern, then confirming you've done each item by reading the checklist afterwards, is the best way of doing it.

morno

Mach E Avelli

16th Dec 2012, 04:19

Electronic checklists have been around a long time in various forms. The upside is the amount of stuff that can go on them for emergency procedures. The downside is that none of it works if the electrics fail, but I guess we will always have a paper back up for that situation. Also it is too easy to fall into the trap of loading too much non essential stuff on to them.
For day to day checks, the old flip tabs on the glareshield are the best, particularly for single pilot work. Head stays up and by their very nature they have to be kept short.
When I flew the old Fokker 27 we had one that covered everything needed for safe operations and it had space for 10 or so items each side, 20 in all.
The B 737 checklist on the control column only has about 12 items in all, which covers taxi, takeoff, approach and landing. Although the pre start phase and shut down phases require a few more to be read out from a printed sheet.

Tinstaafl

16th Dec 2012, 04:44

I've been trying to find those flip tabs for bloody ages. Damned if I can find any for sale.

Centaurus

16th Dec 2012, 12:29

I well recall the story of a pilot at Essendon starting his C402 which had one of these fancy roller blind checklists with about 90 items from start to stop. The company required full use of this checklist. Even the most inconsequential item was on it.
It was night and raining and the windows misted up. As he turned to taxi out of the lines he started rolling his checklist and never did see his wing tip swipe the nose of another aircraft. He sure felt it though. Did not affect his career though since he is now an A330 captain with Dragonair and very wealthy thank you very much. Half his luck.

The longest checklist I ever saw was on a civilian Winjeel at Point Cook. It was another of these roller blind thingies. I knew a thing or two about Winjeels having instructed on them in the old days in the RAAF. Checklists were unheard of then. Didn't need them on Tiger Moths, Wirraways or Mustangs or even Dakotas.

This Winjeel at Point Cook had 137 read and do items on its checklist. If I recall correctly, the first item on the checklist was "Gooday". The last item was "have a good day". Obviously user-friendly....

Tinstaafl

16th Dec 2012, 16:11

I used to fly aircraft in Oz with the flip tabs. I thought they were a great way to have the needed checklist stuff conveniently to hand. I've never seen them here in the US. No one seems to know about them.

Howard Hughes

16th Dec 2012, 22:38

New Morno? Been using those (with voice) for ten years!
Sadly the replacements are a step backwards!:{

I miss the synthesized voice. :ok:

morno

17th Dec 2012, 00:05

Yeah definitely not new Howard, that's just the header of the page I linked to (pprune did it's automatic thing).

We use them up here too, great great tools.

morno

FGD135

17th Dec 2012, 02:31

But doing the checks in a flow pattern, then confirming you've done each item by reading the checklist afterwards, is the best way of doing it.

Hear, hear.

Electronic checklists ... ... it is too easy to fall into the trap of loading too much non essential stuff on to them.

I have seen a number of checklists that have way, way more items on them than necessary - some electronic.

Question 1: What happens when pilots have a hopelessly bloated checklist?

Answer: They don't use them.

Question 2: What happens when you inform the head of check and training that there is a major safety issue at your company because pilots aren't using the checklist?

Answer: They tell you to use the checklist.

MakeItHappenCaptain

17th Dec 2012, 03:03

Question 3: So who's fault is it when an incident/accident occurs because the pilot wasn't using the checklist?

Answer: The pilot. Tough tinsel. (In the xmas spirit.)

baron_beeza

17th Dec 2012, 04:09

I was doing some training in the States many years ago. After engine start the instructor noticed the next page was missing from the checklist.

Without any form of run-up and take off checklist he was lost. This in a Cessna 152.

At that time every aeroclub in NZ would have been using TTMPFFIHCL.

In my time working as a LAME for airlines, and in many countries, I cannot ever remember an engineer using any checklist for the routine stuff. A little different I know.
Some of the engineering sheets had a terrible flow to them anyway, even with some of the more modern equipment.

AerocatS2A

17th Dec 2012, 12:09

baron_beeza, I still remember "too many fat flying instructors have crash landings" from my C152 days (no prop pitch.)

FGD135

17th Dec 2012, 12:50

Question 3: So who's fault is it when an incident/accident occurs because the pilot wasn't using the checklist?

Answer: The pilot. Tough tinsel. (In the xmas spirit.)

Not necessarily, MakeItHappenCaptain. If the pilots have officially raised the issue with the company then it would be the company's fault.

MakeItHappenCaptain

18th Dec 2012, 07:29

FGD135;

Soooooo.....
Pilot works for company,
Pilot has read and signed ops manual,
Ops manual says checklist must be used,
Pilot refuses to use checklist,
Pilot has accident due to missed checklist items...

In what world would this not be grounds for immediate dismissal (no warnings) due to placing passengers lives at risk? I've seen this outcome before.

You can disagree with a checklist all you like. You have two options. If the company doesn't change it you either use it or work elsewhere.

The C172 with G1000 has 62 separate steps (not including pre-flight) from pre-start utbni take-off, and that's just in the manufacturer's checklist! I've still seen owners able to follow this list EXACTLY (and from memory!). Impressive. Why can't a "professional" pilot do this?:cool:

Please tell me if I've interpreted the scenario the wrong way.

UnderneathTheRadar

18th Dec 2012, 07:46

MHC- I think FGD135 is referring to a scenario where there is a problem (or something is plain wrong) with a checklist which makes it unusable, and they've told their employer.

Stationair8

18th Dec 2012, 07:51

This dude has more hand movements than an underage disco.

Gotta love taxing and turning with one engine engaged in beta and the other not in beta!

MakeItHappenCaptain

18th Dec 2012, 08:38

UTR & FGD

That's a pretty big call though, ie. deliberately not using a checklist.:=

As I said, I've seen dismissals due to accidents directly related to not using a checklist and those were just lazy pilots. Can you imagine the sihtstorm associated with deliberately breaching standard operating procedureand claiming "the company drove them to it"?

Can't understand why the company would be held liable for a pilot's deliberate misconduct.

If you can give an example of "unworkable" items (without alluding to specific companies if possible)? It may lend understanding (but not any form of condoning) to the scenario.

MyNameIsIs

18th Dec 2012, 23:54

Gotta love taxing and turning with one engine engaged in beta and the other not in beta!

Is there a problem with doing this?
Isn't it just differential power but in a different form? (Changing thrust by changing blade angle rather than spooling the entire engine/prop up on the outside).

FGD135

19th Dec 2012, 04:31

I think FGD135 is referring to a scenario where there is a problem (or something is plain wrong) with a checklist which makes it unusable, and they've told their employer.

Thanks, UTR - that is exactly the situation I was referring to.

If you can give an example of "unworkable" items ...

Consider a "prelanding" checklist that has "gear down - 3 greens" near the top, with another dozen, trivial, items following (a not unusual feature of the bloated and poorly designed checklists I have seen).

Company SOPs may dictate that the gear is to be extended on mid/late downwind, and if you conform with this, then you can't begin this checklist until after the gear is down, by which time there is insufficient time to check the remaining items properly.

And to top that off, there may be a "finals" checklist with another half dozen, generally trivial items (e.g, another check that the gear is down).

The risks of an accident/incident during the approach to land - especially at night - is greatly elevated when a pilot attempts to conform to such checklists. It could be said that the pilot has a moral duty to NOT use the checklist in such circumstances.

And no, I am not referring to the checklist as a "do list". I am referring to it as strictly a "check list". Which means that you can DO the actions at any time (and any order), but must CHECK those actions strictly via the checklist - in the order presented on the checklist.

A checklist is something that should be respected by pilots, but such a checklist tends to be regarded with contempt - and not used at all.

A well designed checklist will recognise the human factors that are an unavoidable aspect of piloting an aircraft. Those "human factors" mean that even the most disciplined and professional pilots will disrespect checklists that are unnecessarily bloated. Lives have been lost in checklist-related accidents at airlines where checklist abuse was widespread.

If the company has been informed of the major safety deficiency that non-use of the checklists represents, and they take no action (other than to remind pilots they should be using the checklist), then the company would be found to be at fault in any accident where misuse of the checklist was a causal factor.

How the otherwise intelligent C&T staff that create chronically bloated checklists can imagine their pilots diligently checking each and every item on the chronically bloated checklist is beyond my comprehension.

LeadSled

19th Dec 2012, 08:40

How the otherwise intelligent C&T staff that create chronically bloated checklists can imagine their pilots diligently checking each and every item on the chronically bloated checklist is beyond my comprehension.

Folks,
The most common reason, recently, is the demands of CASA FOIs to greatly expand AFM checklists with a lot of non-vital junk.

Almost as common, is the percentage who don't understand why you have a "check" list, and want to make it a procedures list.

FOI demands as applied to some of the little jets are ludicrous, and, in my opinion ( as well as being in violation of CAR 138) seriously increases the risk of "getting it wrong", just what a vital actions checklist is designed to avoid.

Just what you would expect with some FOIs having little real experience in the area.

Tootle pip!!

Lickher Licence

19th Dec 2012, 08:46

This guy does his flows very quickly.. Maybe a bit of a show pony factor for the camera.
There is nothing wrong with using beta on one while the other at a low power setting! Checklists should be short, simple and to the point :)

MakeItHappenCaptain

19th Dec 2012, 12:04

Starting to see your angle, FGD, but was expecting items more trivial items such as "set obs 1 to match rwy, set obs 2 to match rwy, note arrival time, secure loose items, check seatbelt..."

Refer to Leadsleds "procedure list vs checklist" comments.

Have worked for companies where certain phases were explicitly stated as memory only checks, eg. finals, although I would say that covering certain items twice is not a bad thing. Gear is definitely one of these.

If you can't manage Prop, Undercarraige, Fuel, Flap, (Cowls, Clearance) or something similar on final, there's a drama and are the company pre-landing checks really anything extra on top of the pre-landing checks you learned at your school? :cool:

Final question, do to management pilots use their own checklist?
If no, agreed there's an issue.
If yes, why can't all pilots?

A37575

19th Dec 2012, 12:09

Folks,
The most common reason, recently, is the demands of CASA FOIs to greatly expand AFM checklists with a lot of non-vital junk.

Including as always in GA the call "Gear down and locked" even though it is a fixed gear aircraft. Or on final "Pitch full fine" in a fixed pitch prop aircraft.
This is the non-vital junk that should be junked. You will never see this rubbish in a manufacturer's AFM

Jamair

19th Dec 2012, 12:28

Tinny - I've got one of those flip tab things in a box somewhere, with its original instructions and a coupla sheets of stick-on items...... will have a look if you're really keen. Posi-check or some such I think its called. Skytramps (the real one, not the current iteration) had them in all their aircraft.

MakeItHappenCaptain

19th Dec 2012, 16:19

Including as always in GA the call "Gear down and locked" even though it is a fixed gear aircraft. Or on final "Pitch full fine" in a fixed pitch prop aircraft.

Exactly why I always taught those two checks as exactly that - checks.
Gear - Checked, Fixed or Checked, Down
Prop - Checked, Fixed or Checked, Fine

That way the checks are included, no matter what level of aircraft is flown. You aren't however associating a call without an action.

AerocatS2A

19th Dec 2012, 22:33

That is an excellent idea, and its exactly why, when on short finals in my jet, I have the following check; prop - checked, not fitted. :ugh:

How about we use checks that suit the aeroplane we are actually flying? Or is that too much strain on the brain?

Howard Hughes

19th Dec 2012, 23:37

Gotta love taxing and turning with one engine engaged in beta and the other not in beta!
One of my pet hates in a Kingair, they aint that hard to turn!;)

dreamjob

20th Dec 2012, 00:28

You'll be riding the brakes without the help of beta.

Howard Hughes

20th Dec 2012, 00:42

You still use beta, you just don't need it to turn! :}

Tinstaafl

20th Dec 2012, 01:00

Jamair, I'm interested. How much would you like for it?

MakeItHappenCaptain

20th Dec 2012, 01:48

That is an excellent idea, and its exactly why, when on short finals in my jet, I have the following check; prop - checked, not fitted.

How about we use checks that suit the aeroplane we are actually flying? Or is that too much strain on the brain?

Oh, but we all learned to fly in a jet now, didn't we. Silly moi!

Word for the day....context.:rolleyes:

AerocatS2A

20th Dec 2012, 08:14

We should learn to fly using checks appropriate for the aircraft we are flying because we will ultimately be using that system assuming we go on to be commercial pilots. That's the context I'm seeing.

Look I recognise that having a basic set of checks that covers all light aircraft is not a bad idea but it got a bit ridiculous for me when I was doing a check in a Tiger Moth and the checker, who I respect greatly, insisted he wanted to hear me run through the whole thing, gear - fixed, mixture - not fitted, pitch - fixed, carb heat - not fitted etc. Of course the irony is that the catch-all check list doesn't include leading edge slats which is something that a number of Tiger Moths DO have.

MCKES

20th Dec 2012, 08:51

Totally agree Aerocat:ok:

Jamair

20th Dec 2012, 11:59

Tinny - assuming you're not in a huge rush, I'll PM you when I find it & we'll discuss further. Cheers.

dreamjob

20th Dec 2012, 15:18

You still use beta, you just don't need it to turn! :}

So if the engines are already in beta, why not have one lever further back in beta to assist the turn? :ok:

You can easily taxi around without even using the brakes, but then you would need to use beta (with differential)!

I guess every owner/operator is different.

MyNameIsIs

21st Dec 2012, 01:49

So if the engines are already in beta, why not have one lever further back in beta to assist the turn? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

That's what I was thinking the case to be.

What's the alternative, differential brake to assist a turn if it needs tightening?
Surely the change in beta on one prop is not as noticable than someone stabbing at a brake pedal (it is surprising how many people don't know how to brake smoothly!)

HH, how do you turn your Kingair tightly after taxying with some beta- click them out and use differrential brake and apply differential power (spool one up)?
Or are you just talking about not using differential beta in a normal, non-tighter-than-the-pedal-steering turn?

Howard Hughes

21st Dec 2012, 10:17

You can easily taxi around without even using the brakes, but then you would need to use beta (with differential)!
You can easily taxi around without using the brakes and no need for any sort of differential power/beta. Where are you going that you need to turn that tightly? Just manage the momentum and the turns take care of themselves, or am I doing it wrong?

What would you do in a PC-12? :eek: :eek: ;)

dreamjob

21st Dec 2012, 11:21

It also depends on how well your nose wheel steering link works. Some King airs are absolutely terrible where others can turn easily.

No idea about the PC12 :}

Ixixly

21st Dec 2012, 11:49

For those of you curious I'm currently putting together QRH's for my current job and having never really written a proper checklist before I did some research and found a great article on Checklist Design and Use as applied directly to Aviation.

http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/adegani/Cockpit%20Checklists.pdf

Its a bit of a long read but quite interesting and really delves into the Human Factors that relate to what makes good and bad checklists.

MakeItHappenCaptain

21st Dec 2012, 12:02

We should learn to fly using checks appropriate for the aircraft we are flying because we will ultimately be using that system assuming we go on to be commercial pilots. That's the context I'm seeing.

Yeah, so considering everyone's first GA commercial job is going to be on a prop driven aircraft, the check that includes a prop is just a tad more relevant than a jet orientated one until such time as you make the step into a jet. My comment about technique was aimed at how procedures are taught. It was never meant to be type specific.

Dash8capt

21st Dec 2012, 12:11

Yeah, so considering everyone's first GA commercial job is going to be on a prop driven aircraft
Only problem now is they are going straight into the jets.

MakeItHappenCaptain

21st Dec 2012, 13:15

And that would be why I said first GA commercial job. I wouldn't exactly include the regional airlines in this category. :cool:

Doesn't matter if they're Rex, Deathstar, or ADF, they all start on prop anyhoo.

Dash8capt

21st Dec 2012, 22:15

My apologies, what I meant is GA is no longer a part of the process for a lot. Emirates, Cathay, Jetstar, China airlines, numerous European and Asian airlines (incl eagle jet), have their students come out of training and into the sim/jet. Airmanship is no longer taught, ass covering has taken its place. :ugh:

MyNameIsIs

22nd Dec 2012, 07:07

You can easily taxi around without using the brakes and no need for any sort of differential power/beta.

In a lot of places, yes it is quite possible. But there are many times when you need more than the 12-14 degrees of nosewheel steering to get you around regardless of your speed.

Where are you going that you need to turn that tightly? Just manage the momentum and the turns take care of themselves, or am I doing it wrong?

Going to plenty on min width runways and tiny parking areas that don't fit more than a couple of aircraft, let alone anything like a Kingair.
Yep, Its easy taxying around places that take 737s+, but some back blocks country strips, 180s on the min width runways the B200 just wont turn without some added extra.

Not saying your doing it wrong, but to have using differential beta in turns as a pet hate I think is probably a bit much.
I'd say people riding brakes and NOT using beta would be a bigger pet hate to concern ourselves with. I've seen people destroy brake units doing this, despite however many times ive informed them (and these are supposedly experienced turboprop pilots).
Having said that though, my pet hate is people spooling up turbines and shoving in fistfulls of fuel when not required (lots will just roll from idle). Somebody might think that a bit much too; but your burner can and turbine blades will thank you for considering their temps later at the next HSI, especially as the engine ages.

Many ways to skin a cat.

What would you do in a PC-12?
Don't know, never been in one. Maybe their nosewheels turn more or they use a tiller? Someone else can chime in with that info.

Jack Ranga

22nd Dec 2012, 10:07

That bloke out the front, the Air Traffic Controller with the ping pong bats, will he have ra-tard children cause his nuts got roasted by the weather radar?

LeadSled

22nd Dec 2012, 14:32

That bloke out the front, the Air Traffic Controller with the ping pong bats, will he have ra-tard children cause his nuts got roasted by the weather radar? JR,
Whatever you are drinking, it must be good stuff???
Or do you just want to make the ground marshallers feel good, by elevating them to ATC.
Tootle pip!!

PS: By the way, high powered WX radars are just about museum pieces --- most radars now have a power at the antenna of something like 100w or less , that's not going to cause any spontaneous abortions.