"I recall doing my restricted PPL at around 33 hours which I recall was about average at that time. I just wonder what has changed when we see some students not progressing in much the same timeline. Is the air different? No, I suspect it is the culture that now exists in the flying schools and within the instructor fraternity."
Aww Triadic lets be fair here. Back then the focus was on teaching, today its focused on Box Ticking. I think the ratio is somewhere around 50:50 today.
Half hour of teaching followed by a half hour of box ticking. A bit of consideration for the poor instructors, RSI is a very common malady for instructors, writers cramp even more so. First item on the checklist:
1. Mentholatum Deep heat tube...............................STOWED.
I believe a lot of the angst regarding checklists is driven by the legal implications. Liability, and everything that goes with it.
On the commercial side of things checklists must be approved by CAsA which puts them in the gun should anything go wrong. "Safety" as we all know comes a very poor second to liability.
Pity the poor FOI's who have to Vet proposed Checklists. Many of them with no background or experience have to approve checklists for some fairly complex types. Their guidance comes from the AOCM section 7. It gives a lot of detail about how and what should be incorporated in a checklist but fails to give any leeway against what is contained in the AFM. I know of one company charged for sixteen hours of an FOI's time to "Check" the manufacturer supplied FAA approved QRH conformed with the AFM
Here's where the confusion comes.
For a lot of the more complex aircraft the AFM's lists are "Normal Operating Procedures". Procedures being the key word because that's what they are.
They are presented in a checklist kind of way, which our intrepid FOI's interpret as "if it looks like a checklist sounds like a checklist" its a checklist.
With no background or exposure in the real world who could blame them for insisting that checklists must match the AFM procedures lists, liability then falls on the manufacturer not on them or CAsA.
I have been told of 56 item taxi checklists for a light jet, which included advancing thrust to 80% for a couple of minutes, while trying to taxi, both pilots heads in when they should be heads out. A rather classic way of setting up an excursion somewhere, for which the pilots would ultimately be blamed.
CAR 242 calls for a "Check System" Which could be a procedural system of scan flow, complying with the AFM procedures, followed by a simple kill item checklist much the same as Boeing and Airbus does. The question is who takes responsibility for it?
One also has to consider that the content of AFM's for older aircraft was written thirty even 40 years ago and does not reflect modern research based design.
At the end of the day, no matter how checklists are presented or actioned or what their content is, the safety benefit of diligently using them far outweighs risks of not.
Last edited by thorn bird; 28th Sep 2018 at 03:42.