PDA

View Full Version : Configuration Assurance


9 lives
5th Sep 2014, 00:34
Most aircraft have variability to their configuration, which is pilot controlled. The most common examples being flaps and retractable landing gear. But really carb heat, mixture, propeller and cowl flaps are also configuration related. A lot of unhappy events occur because the pilot tried to fly the aircraft in a way which was in conflict with its configuration. Landing on a runway with the wheels up is a common example, or running off the end of a runway because flaps were not extended. Failing to retract them for a go around or touch and go are other common examples.

I opine that the training has to focus strongly on configuration assurance at each phase of flight. Use of a checklist is a great way to do this, and I know a lot of pilots who stop and read many times per flight - I can't criticize this, as long as they maintain a watch, leave time so they don't get behind, and actively prevent an interruption from causing missed checklist items.

But, what if the training was more basic, a focus on "configuration assurance"? The drill is that the pilot says to them self at each change in flight:

"I plan to next do _ _ _ _ _ with this aircraft, that will require _ _ _ _ _ configuration". Have I selected the configuration correctly? Checked, yes. We're done. ('till the next phase of flight).

This is of particular importance flying amphibians, as they are deliberately landed wheels up on the water, so the absent minded "wheels down for landing" could end up really bad! In the 182 amphibian, I even have a lady's voice, but I STILL have to confirm where I think where I'm about to land it, she can't tell...

Thus, EVERY landing RG landing I fly is preceded with (at altitude) verbal "Wheels are down/up for landing on land/water", and the same again on short final, with an out the window visual check. If I catch myself that I forgot one of those out loud configuration assurance speaks - it's a circuit, until I get it right. Happily, my 10 year old daughter often beats me to the second one these days, but I still smile and say it again to her.

We have checklists, funny code words, whose letters might remind us of things which should be done in the cockpit, (or an old limerick). We have the unconscious memory, or muscle memory, which just makes the plane what a partly brain dead pilot thinks it should be. But what if, instead, the pilot simply remembered that at every change, the configuration for the next intended maneuver must be assured? It's simple - A reminder to put your brain back in gear, and think about what you're about to do.

Configuration assurance......

ChickenHouse
5th Sep 2014, 00:39
I simply call it briefing and it's on the respective checklists.

9 lives
5th Sep 2014, 01:41
Ah, but the whole point is that if a checklist is not used, or used improperly (like an interruption), the underlying pilot discipline must be to assure configuration for the intended phase of flight.

I've seen pilots whistle through a checklist, without actually checking the item - I've caught them at it! Silly, for certain, but if you're flying on your own, and do that, the discipline of configuration assurance could save the day.

We get fixated with the checklist, and it varies by aircraft type. Sometimes there is not a correct checklist anyway.

The need to assure configuration is always constant - no matter what aircraft type, or checklist format. I'm not knocking checklists, but I assure configuration as a separate exercise.

India Four Two
5th Sep 2014, 05:16
Step Turn,


Your comments are very timely. I've used "Gear down" in my downwind checks for many years, even though the majority of my flying is in fixed-gear aircraft.


I also have a float-rating and next month I'll be back in Canada and assuming there is not an early freeze-up, I'll be revalidating my rating in a Cessna amphib. It will be interesting to see how my brain copes with a new checklist item.

worrab
5th Sep 2014, 06:17
You're very neatly highlighting the value of calling out. Once something is said out loud it seems to carry more importance. (Though I've sometimes wondered whether a CVR of my solo flights would sound like the rantings of a madman!)

Genghis the Engineer
5th Sep 2014, 06:29
Once upon a time, I somehow failed to take the parking brake off before takiing and taking off in a tailwheel configured aeroplane on wet grass (which is probably the only reason that I got away with it, it was a somewhat juddery take-off !).

Pre-landing checks.

"B" - Brakes on / off, confirmed off.

OH GOD - I'd left the parking brake on. De-select.



I won't deny screwing up pre-flight, but without adherence to a pre-landing checklist (memorised, but that's a lot less relevant) I'd probably have stood the aeroplane on its nose and wrecked it


Which is how the system's supposed to work. Whilst we all aim for zero mistakes, regular checks are designed to pick up errors and stop them staying with you to cause problems. As they did there.

G.

Piltdown Man
5th Sep 2014, 13:24
I don't believe a checklist is the answer. Large (complicated?) aircraft have simple checklists. Mine has three airborne checklists - After takeoff (2), Approach (2) and Before Landing (3). The sum total of all check items is SEVEN. When flying a piston aircraft for the first time, I used before departure and TMPFSH and BUF before landing. Everything else was checked and set in scan flows or adjusted as and when. By taking this approach, you are constantly considering where you are, what you are doing and why.

Keep checklist simple and relevant.

PM