Can't you just combine this one with the "water rudders up" memory item?
Water rudder retracts with the tailwheel, so if you've checked the gear, you've got the water rudder where it needs to be. Good example though!
I'm not familiar with that type.
Really just for club type, simple singles.
Okay,
So, in all seriousness... My job is to create the Flight Manual Supplement for a modification to an aircraft. Some of these aircraft are "simple" (Cessna 150, 172, PA 28, Champ, Citabria) for example. That FMS might include a checklist. How do I convince pilots to use it?
I've argued for years with Transport Canada staff, that in lieu of an FMS, or checklist, I would rather specify a placard (harder to lose or ignore), but they want an FMS/checklist, as that is what the design requirements specify. What's the point of my creating these if everyone states that they ignore them?
I read here many references to "spam cans" and poorly maintained aircraft, as if to suggest that this group of really excellent pilots expect nothing but the very safest and best when it comes to the aircraft
they fly. Yet I do a thorough job, and document the work done to the aircraft, which might include an FMS, or revised checklist, and I'm getting told here that:
any pilot in the Chipmunk who at any stage needed to refer to a check list, I'd watch him like a hawk, ring my insurance broker, and make a note not to fly with him again!
I've approved a modified fuel system in a Chipmunk, which had a checklist item. The pilot is supposed to completely ignore it, 'cause the other pilot frowns on checklists in general? And completely subvert the approval process, which was thorough, in documenting the modification?
I can imagine the horror story here now: "The bloody Chipmunk had a modified fuel system! So he forced landed it because he did not know about the extra fuel tank! Can you imagine the nerve of someone modifying the plane, and not providing instructions on how the fuel system worked!!!".
Don't laugh, a C 150 with a modified fuel system (nothing to do with me) was force landed out of fuel, with one tank still full ('cause the pilot could not figure out how to use the fuel). I was called to do a proper approval of the system after the fact.
Would the contributors here please suggest to me what they think is the appropriate threshold where it's worth them actually considering/using the content of an FMS or checklist? How "un simple" does the modification have to be to warrant instructions to the pilot? Or should I, the person delegated to approve it, decide on behalf of the pilot, using the prevailing design standards for reference?
I'm getting the impression that those pilots who want the "perfectly maintained" plane, are not really interested in reading what needs to be done to fly it safely....
Help me out here....