Cessna 150 checkist

[ChickenHouse]

I am really surprised that the question for a checklist does have this kind of discussion. In my eyes the issue is quite simple.

First: if I enter a plane, be it my own or a rented one, there has to be one in it by any regulations of the world I know (ok, sometimes in Africa, it was not, but that is a totally different story). Second: the checklist has to be the one which is part of the ARC inspection, so one time a year it is checked a checklist is on board and it is the correct one (item on the list for ARC, tyoical the one after original POH on board). Third: the only allowed checklist is the official one released by the manufacturer, maybe in a later revision, but often still the one with which the plane was delivered at first hand.

First reality: many times at ARC neither POH nor checklist were checked. Second reality: quite often neither the correct POH nor the correct checklist is on board. Third reality: the original documents are not the very best ones from nowadays perspective and it may be advisable to write an own version of the POH as well as a personal checklist, which is mainly the official one with some added features for things fit in the last x0 years.

My best way is to keep the original POH and checklist documents within the planelog and use my own. By this I am current on document features and do have the originals for ARC and ramp checks handy.

[cockney steve]

@27/09
just re-read the last couple of lines of my post
These Aircraft have proved to be far more durable than the makers ever envisaged.
The Spitfire was a short-life aircraft....it would either be written off or suprseded within ~ 5 years...so nopoint wasting resources building for a 10-year life.

The SIDS are showing wing-strut cracks and laminated -spar corrosion, among other issues....Perhaps, by the time the Reims versions entered production, someone realised the design was unbeatable and therefore the factory corrosion-proofed for an extended life.

Back on thread...My pilot friend had access to a 152, a 172 and an Aeronca Chief we mainly flew in the Chief . A simple,logical, progression around the aircraft covered everything from tyres to fuel-level No flaps, no electrics (Icom and battery-intercom) Armstrong starting.
Maybe it helped he was from an engineering background? (me,too)
NO CHECK LIST....but, even now, I could probably do the full routine up to lining-up...and i've never had a formal lesson
I don't remember a list for the Cessnas, either, but, as both our lives depended on it, it got the full beady eye treatment,including full flap extension, inspection. retraction......finally a check on full andfree controls before the start and run-up (repeated after power-check immediately before takeoff.)If there was a "gotcha" I never saw it.

[ChickenHouse]

This SID discussion is going round and round ... I had a review recently on more then a dozen of them and was shocked by the results - most of the owners paid extraordinary amounts of cash for them and did receive only checked lists as a result - no pictures, no videos, no real documentation. I then started to visit the maintenance organizations and check photos and docs on what they really did. First of all, almost everybody got ripped off by the companies. Many bills were mere street robbery and many, many people did not get half of what they paid for. What was presented as finding, was often poorly documented and where it was, it was quite often obviously unnecessary work done. Yes, the Cessna corrosion inspection is a good thing to do and in some few cases there were really potential things to stop, but the most of these findings are covered by ADs already. I also had the inspection done on my plane (Reims built) and as a result I am quite happy to know the plane is fine and free of corrosion, but we also had some preventive corrosion treatment to not have a problem in 10 years - fine with me and worth the money I spent, but that was about one third of the typical inspection costs charged. So people, do the Cessna corrosion inspection, but stay close when they do it, because even your old buddy workshop will try to rip you off.

[Pilot DAR]

Third reality: the original documents are not the very best ones from nowadays perspective and it may be advisable to write an own version of the POH as well as a personal checklist, which is mainly the official one with some added features for things fit in the last x0 years.

Be careful with that....

The POH (as a "Flight Manual") is a document approved by the certifying authority for the aircraft design. Writing your own version, though perhaps entertaining, would not result in a document which had any legal basis from which to operate the aircraft. This theme extends to the checklist provided in the POH/Flight Manual - it is in the "Approved" section of the POH, and as such, would require reapproval if changed.

If the aircraft has "added features" which are properly approved (usually by STC) and installed, there would be an approved Flight Manual Supplement with these installations. That FMS might contain a supplemental checklist, which would be required to be followed.

Though I'm not aware of any regulation prohibiting writhing your own checklist (or I suppose POH), if you are not operating the aircraft with reference to the approved version, you're on thin ice for compliance (ramp check). I suppose if your home made checklist obviously exactly combines the relevant sum of approved checklists from the original aircraft and any approved mods, and the originals were still available for pilot reference, that would probably be looked upon favourably by authorities.

[ChickenHouse]

I did check with authorities before making my own checklist. They told me they are absolutely fine with personal checklists, as long as it contains only additions for cockpit procedures and you carry the original POH and checklist on board. At ramp check, they are only interested in the original ones. I even translated my original POH and made two personal copies to stick in the plane for friends unable to read english. So, personal checklists and POHs are just like any other novel book as long as you have the original documents handy.

[maxred]

Time then, for the really stupid question.

If, the 'authorities', and the manufacturer, deem it a necessity, or even mandatory, to have a 'checklist', to operate the aeroplane, then why is everyone debating not using it.

'My memory serves me well'. 'Waste of time'. 'If you are that stupid, you cant operate a simple type without a checklist, go take up golf'

Quote-unquote???

[Pilot DAR]

The authorities and manufacturer also require that sufficient fuel be carried for the intended flight, and people don't do that, so why would they carry and refer to the required checklist? The Canadian wording is the the approved checklist "be available" to the pilot (like fuel, I suppose) how the pilot uses it could be a different thing, but don't get caught in trouble not using it!

If you are using a home made or flying school made checklist, and something has been omitted, or confusion introduced by non approved additions, you, the pilot using that checklist, become responsible, not the person who wrote it!

Yes, I was required to have and use a paper copy of the checklist for my C 150 when I flew it for my CPL ride. (I had more than 2500 hours in that plane at that point). I exactly copied the one from the POH, and all was good. For those three or four flights, I used the checklist. When I flew an MD500 yesterday, the other pilot and I used the checklist (as I don't fly those very often).

[ChickenHouse]

@maxred: it is twofold, point one - every local authority under ICAO regulations requires the pilot to operate compliant with the operations defined by the planes manufacturer; point two: the manufacturer complied with manufacturing and permit to fly regulations by issuing checklists in their respective type POH and/or separate checklist documents.

If later changes apply, it is not expected by authorities to release a new POH, which would be then plane specific and no longer type specific, but to have some addendum of unspecific kind, so that all documents can be used as if they would have been the original issued POH/checklist in that case.

So, yes, it is useless to discuss POH or checklist, because they are part of the internationally agreed procedures to operate a plane correctly.
And further yes, in reality many people give a sh*t.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Chicken - I'm not going to repeat what's been said. No-one mandates I use a checklist in an L4 Cub, a Chipmunk, or even a Yak52 (quite a complex aeroplane). So what are you on about?

[glendalegoon]

I think what is mandated is that there IS a checklist on board the aircraft.

What I think would be interesting to know is when you take a check ride, and you don't use a checklist, do you pass your check ride?

BTW: I am of the opinion that many items should be done via a "DO LIST" instead of a checklist. I AM NOT A FAN OF "FLOWS" to accomplish things. I have seen both methods and the most sure way of setting all switches prior to start is the "DO LIST".

"CHECK LISTS" make more sense while actually flying, moving etc.

IT seems to me that C150 types have a checklist printed on the sun visor. Piper had checklists printed on the instrument panel near the fuel gauges. But this is from memory as I have not flown either types this century. Or in the last 32 years.

[Genghis the Engineer]

As I said, the document called a checklist can be used in one of three ways...

Do - confirm

Read - Do

Challenge - Respond.


The first two are both potentially viable in light GA, and either can be built upon a flow, a written checklist, or a memorised mnemonic.


Incidentally

Standards Document 19 (A): Notes for the Guidance of Applicants taking the PPL Skill Test (Aeroplanes) | Publications | About the CAA

Page 11..

Throughout the flight the applicant will be expected to use the authorised aeroplane checklist. The applicant is to assume that the test is the first flight of the day. Airborne checks may be completed from memory, or from alternative notes, but must be in accordance with the checklist and wi th each check item spoken aloud.

Page 12...

The applicant will be expected to proceed with the checks at a practical pace and with reference to the checklist. Expanded checklists are not permitted. Where visual checks are made these should be described to the Examiner only if requested

And for CPL Standards Document 03: Notes for the Guidance of Examiners and Applicants taking the CPL Skill Test (Aeroplanes) | Publications | About the CAA

Page 11..

hroughout the flight the applicant will be expected to use the approved aeroplane checklist. The applicant is to assume that the test is the first flight of the day. Airborne checks may be completed from memory, or from alternative notes, but must be in accordance with the checklist.

Or on page 20 of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_lts...ept%202012.pdf

Simulated emergencies (any emergency , abnormal procedure or system failure that is appropriate to the aeroplane on which the test is conducted) Correctly diagnose the problem Consider options and decide upon a sound course of action With reference to checklist, execute appropriate abnormal or emergency procedures Review, plan and execute further actions as appropriate to ensure safe recovery of aeroplane, passengers and crew

That seems to cover the checkride issue pretty well, at-least for us Brits. How about the yanks?

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/...S-8081-14B.pdf

Page 36...

Task Management Reference : FAA-H-8083-15.
Objective: To determine that the applicant can prioritize the various tasks associated with the planning and execution of the flight. The applicant should:

1. Explain how to prioritize tasks in such a way to minimize distractions from flying the aircraft.
2. Complete all tasks in a timely manner considering the phase of flight without causing a distraction from flying.
3.Execute all checklists and procedures in a manner that does not increase workload at critical times

And page 38

Applicant’s Use of Checklists

Throughout the practical test, the applicant is evaluated on the use of an approved manufacturer’s checklist or equivalent. If no
manufacturer’s checklist is published, the appropriate FAA handbook or equivalent checklist may be used. Proper use is dependent on the specific Task being evaluated. The situation may be such that the use of the checklist, while accomplishing elements of an objective, would be either unsafe or impractical, especially in a single - pilot operation. In this case, a review of the checklist after the
elements have been accomplished would be appropriate. Division of attention and proper visual scanning should be considered when
using a checklist

So nobody is arguing for blind and unthinking use of checklists, but the world's two most competent aviation authorities seem pretty clear that you should be using one.

Unless there is something wrong with the standards of airmanship being required in the PPL and CPL checkrides / skill tests that I've missed?

G

[Pilot DAR]

world's two most competent aviation authorities

Or, "two of the worlds most competent aviation authorities..."

....... aviation authorities seem pretty clear that you should be using one.

... And, as specifically mentioned, an approved one, at that.

This, and:

Expanded checklists are not permitted.

...really should be enough to remind pilots to do away with the multi page essays from non approved sources, and stick to what the manufacturer provides for the aircraft.

Thanks for the research G!

[Genghis the Engineer]

A much less clear question is what do we mean by "approved", and who is allowed to approve it?

G

[SpannerInTheWerks]

SSD:

In July of this year the Safety & Airspace Regulation Group, Flight Standards Department of the UK CAA published the latest revision of their 'Flight Examiners' Handbook (Aeroplanes and Helicopters)'.

Amongst other things the Handbook provides Guidance Notes for examiners conducting flight tests. The Guidance Notes for the LAPL/PPL(A) Skill Test Briefing are to be found at Appendix 2A. As a part of the Main Brief to be carried out by the Examiner under 'Operation' the Handbook states the Examiner should brief (my emphasis):

'Operation. You should conduct this flight in a safe and practical manner and in accordance with ATO Procedures and National Rules. Use your checklist while you are on the ground. In the air you may carry out checks from memory but following the checklist sequence. I want you to say aloud your check-list items as you do them.'

Insofar as the flight test is concerned the applicant, under paragraph 3.2.4, must demonstrate ability to: ... Maintain control of the aircraft at all times such that the successful outcome of a procedure or manoeuvre is never seriously in doubt. The applicant's airmanship and TEM must be assessed with each exercise and this must include lookout, checks and drills ...

Chicken - I'm not going to repeat what's been said. No-one mandates I use a checklist in an L4 Cub, a Chipmunk, or even a Yak52 (quite a complex aeroplane). So what are you on about?

No-one mandates I use a checklist

- the UK CAA do!!!

That's what he's on about!!!

[Pilot DAR]

A much less clear question is what do we mean by "approved", and who is allowed to approve it?

The authority (CAA, FAA, Transport Canada, etc.) - whoever approved the aircraft.

Sec. 23.1581

General.

(a) Furnishing information. An Airplane Flight Manual must be furnished with each airplane, and it must contain the following:
.......
(b) Approved information.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, each part of the Airplane Flight Manual containing information prescribed in Secs. 23.1583 through 23.1589 must be approved, segregated, identified and clearly distinguished from each unapproved part of that Airplane Flight Manual.
........

This includes "Emergency Procedures" and "Normal Procedures" sections, from which manufacturer's checklists are derived.

If you are ramp checked (or worse, on the witness stand) and asked to produce the checklist you referred to for the flight, it would be helpful to you if the one you produced was obviously approved by the authority. The one you'll find in the Flight Manual is.

That said, I agree that there are a few aircraft flying out there which predate this requirement (pre 1949). I suppose with those, you just do your best if the POH provides no checklist.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

That said, I agree that there are a few aircraft flying out there which predate this requirement (pre 1949). I suppose with those, you just do your best if the POH provides no checklist.

Yes, some simple types (maybe homebuilds such as Nipper, Jodels etc) may be single seat and have no approved checklists. In those cases maybe there is no mandatory requirement for (or availability of) an approved checklist.

But types such as the Chipmunk and YAK - no excuse there I think!

Just because you may have flown a particular type over many years and have gained a substantial amount of experience doesn't exempt you from the basic principles of good airmanship (TEM) - no matter how much faith you have in your own intelligence.

Remember the greatest cause of accidents is still 'pilot error'.

The use of checklists can only serve to lessen the likelihood of errors arising due to inadvertence on the part of the pilot.

[Pilot DAR]

The use of checklists can only serve to lessen the likelihood of errors arising due to inadvertence on the part of the pilot.

Yes, sort of....

I did use the term "referred to" to distinguish from "held in hand most of the time, and read from". I am in favor of the approved checklist being the reference for the flight, as opposed to a home made document of uncertain origin.

I have certainly seen situations where the over use or dependance on the paper checklist created a cockpit distraction, or interrupted the flow at the time. That could be worse than forgetting an item at that phase of flight. You can check gear down in thirty seconds, but not if you have a mid air first! Everything in moderation...

I'm not saying that the approved checklist has to be in the pilot's hand on a regular basis during the flight. It must be available, and the pilot must refer to it. Reference could be because it has been completely memorized, and I'm not against that, if it works for that pilot, in that aircraft type.

If, the pilot wishes to refer to the checklist directly that's fine too, other than "memory items" (emergency stuff) should be memorized. When I fly my 150, I know that the POH is in the seat pocket, and available. When I fly a Caravan, I'll be holding the paper, 'cause I don't fly them frequently, and costly mistakes can be made, particularly during the start.

This probably is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" situations. If a pilot needs to ask, they need to refer to the paper version of the approved checklist. Other pilots can probably fly entirely safely with recollection of the approved checklist, which must be available, should it be needed. But those pilots do no good by suggesting that other pilots do not need to refer to the paper checklist. Its a personal decision for a private flight, and a company policy for a commercial flight.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Quote:
Chicken - I'm not going to repeat what's been said. No-one mandates I use a checklist in an L4 Cub, a Chipmunk, or even a Yak52 (quite a complex aeroplane). So what are you on about?
Quote:
No-one mandates I use a checklist
- the UK CAA do!!!

That's what he's on about!!!

That's only for check flights, a tiny percentage of my flights, and post dates my operational flying flying anyway (and is indicative of the sort of 'official thinking' [that every PPL is a part-finished airline pilot - what tosh!] that led me to stop flying a while ago, after several very enjoyable decades).

My point stands! That the official mind now mandates checklists in check flights on simple aeroplanes says a lot about the trend of the official mind.

And where do today's 'non airline fodder' find a dHC1 checklist anyway? There are RAF pilot's notes of dubious worth, and ditto few 'home brewed' flying school Chippy checklists. Nothing from deHavilland Canada that I'm aware of. Never seen a manufacturer's POH, either.

[Pilot DAR]

Nothing from deHavilland Canada that I'm aware of. Never seen a manufacturer's POH, either.

From TCDS A-19, Issue 11 for the DHC-1, pages 3 and 4:

"Required Equipment Approved DHC-1 Chipmunk Airplane Flight Manual (DHC-1-2B-S3) PSM1-1S3-1" For example.

That model of the Chipmunk is required to carry the approved Flight Manual.

There are RAF pilot's notes of dubious worth

I would imagine that the RAF qualifies as an entity who are able to create and approve a Flight Manual, or other procedure, for aircraft that they operate, but that's just my opinion....

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

That model of the Chipmunk is required to carry the approved Flight Manual.

Ah! That explains the dymo-taped notice on the instrument panel "Spin recovery may require full forward stick. See also flight manual". But would you have time to un-stow it (from where?) find the relevant page, and follow what it says, before the ground intervened.

There's barely stowage space for a bit of paper with one's radio frequencies scribbled on it in a Chippy, never mind somewhere to keep a flight manual! Even my chart had to be stuffed down the side of the seat cushion when not in use (stowed behind my back for aeros!).