walk around check

[jamup]

whats the best way to do a walkaround check , and where a notherpilot can see that I am true professional th eway I am doing the Checks,,,

[FlyingForFun]

Surely as a "true professional" you should do them in such a way that you've convinced yourself that the aircraft is ready for flight, regardless of what another pilot thinks?

Personally, if I have another pilot with me, I try to encourage a joint pre-flight. On at least one occassion, another pilot has noticed a problem that I'd missed. I don't consider myself "unprofessional" for having missed the problem, but I would have considered myself unprofessional had I not made use of all the resources (including the other pilot) available to me.

FFF
-----------

[QNIM]

jamup
Wouldn't you use the method laid out in the manufactures POH, thats the way we teach, but it's amazing how many things get missed by students after they have been unsupervised for a period of time. I agree with FFF two pair eyes are better than one. Cheers Q :D

[GrantT]

To look really professional walk in a clockwise direction :rolleyes:

[DB6]

Do it as per the checklist, mate, and don't give a toss about looking professional. It's your neck (and your passengers') and how you look after it is up to you. For best effect wear hawaiian shirt and beach trousers.
GrantT, maybe it should be anticlockwise down under :D

[QNIM]

Mr Cessna states anticlockwise, but is that looking up or looking down? Cheer Q .

[witchdoctor]

Always drain the fuel from a position upwind, and never wear white trousers when wiping your hands after checking the oil. To be REALLY professional though, get some oily engineer type chap to do the checks for you while you stand looking all cool and superior in a full airline outfit plus cap.

[fireflybob]

Just one more thing - if there is significant precipitation when about to do the walkround, then make sure you send student to do same or if you are working for an Air Transport Undertaking get the First Officer to do same (assuming you are Captain!!).

Seriously though I agree 120% with DB6 - do as the checklist says. However I have some reservations about "sharing" the walkround (which incidentally in the UK is a Check "A") - remember that as the commander you are responsible. I am not saying I would never share the walkround but it all depends on the situation.

[bluskis]

The check list won't spell out everything you should be looking for.

If the type is unfamiliar, use a check list to fill in the variations and peculiarities, and use someone who knows the type. If the type is familiar go round clockwise and check everything, and some.

If you are teaching, use the checklist.

[machonepointone]

First of all, I have noticed in the many years that I have been flying, that people who refer to it as a "walkround" do exactly that. Most of us have probably seen them - a casual stroll out to the aircraft, a brisk walk (clockwise or anticlockwise does not seem to matter), waggle the control surfaces, peer under and over the airframe, perhaps undo a fuel filler cap and peer knowledgeably into the fuel tank, then climb aboard. If they happen to be an instructor and the student is in the aircraft at the time it merely goes to show (in their own minds), how much better and more efficient they are at doing what someone has already done. Irrespective of how well someone else may have done the check, such arrogance and posing will rarely, if ever, bring to light a missed item.

The procedure I suggest that we should all be adopting should either be known as a Check A or an external check of the aircraft. As a 23 years experienced instructor I never refer to it as a walkround to my students, as this tends to lead them into doing just that.

I cannot fault those who have an accomplice do the checks as well. A second opinion never hurts. All I would suggest is that both parties do the complete check. I know from personal experience from way back how two people doing half the check can make disastrous assumptions. In my case it resulted in nothing worse than getting airborne in a Canberra with a mainwheel undercarriage lock still in place.

It is interesting to see the difference in attitudes between pilots going out to fly and those same pilots attending the PFA rally and having a go at the external checks of an aircraft that they know has been rigged to have some faults. If only we would all do the external checks/check A with the zeal and thoroughness of these individuals it could be that the accident rate worldwide would come tumbling down.

Bottom line, I suppose, is to be thorough and meticulous irrespective of the weather. In the absence of anything else then the manufacturers check list is as good as anything we are going to get.

Enjoy your flying folks, and fly safe.

[QNIM]

When introducing students to the preflight check, I always tell them that some previous pilot may have damaged the aircraft and failed to notify anyone, so their job is to find the damage. I also relate an article from many years ago in the crash comic, of a part owner of a C180, the other part owner had removed the rudder and failed to to advise him, he managed to get airborn with tragic results. That seems to get the message across. Its no good finding the fault once airborn. Cheers Q

[Pigs Might Fly]

This is a topic that a large amount of effort is quite rightly put into during training but one which seems to be acted upon with the least true vigour by most of us!

At the PFA rally most years there is a CAA sponsored Pre-Flight Competition. An aircraft (it has been a helicopeter in previous years) is 'rigged' with usually around 10 mostly obvious faults. Competitors are then given a max. of 30 mins to do their pre-flight inspection.

What is really revealing is that at the end of the rally the results are published and even though most participants spend probably 6 - 10 times longer looking at this aircraft for faults that they know are there but they are not ultimately going to stake their life on as compared to the time spent on an aircraft that they are going to rely on in the near future, very, very few find over 75% of the faults and most only find less than 50%!!!!

What is possibly more worrying is that the groups with the poorer record are generally the commercial pilots - perhaps it's that bits don't drop off the sophisticated aircraft :p

I don't know if the CAA publish generally the comp. results, but I'm sure that it would be an eye-opener for us all.

[BigEndBob]

Become a flying instructor....and get your student to do it!:O

[mad_jock]

Even as a flying instructor I always do the first check of the day then follow up with a transit check after the student has finished fannying around.

I once found one of the planes which had been used for solo hire for a few days with less than 3 quarts of oil in it, and when I got it refilled it only had 4 litres of usable fuel in it which words were said about.

Also I find the pipers alot better for doing preflight checks, you can get a good look at the engine for oil leaks etc which you can't on the cessnas.

MJ

[StrateandLevel]

The Check A should be conducted in accordance with the LAMS Schedule CAP 411. If you have never seen one, its is included with the aircraft airframe engine and propellor Log Books.

The LAMS schedule A check may not be exactly the same as the manufacturers Flight Manual/POH.

Failure to complete the Chek A invalidates the C of A and hence your insurance.

You should conduct the check in such a way that you are both safe and legal.