defenestrator,
wholehearted agree
Quote: Extract from linked CASA ATO Manual:
"Checklists should be kept as short as practical to limit diversion of attention or “head down” while carrying out the checklist
• The addition of unnecessary items could be a distraction and should be removed
• Items on a checklist not required for a specific aircraft should be removed or clearly identified to alert crew the equipment is not fitted.
Seems clear enough to me. Centaurus has a point".
Unfortunately FOI's dont study their own AOCM.
FOI's also dont really understand what is in the flight manual are NOT checklists but are procedures (In the case of cessna read the page heading."Normal Operating Procedures").
The FAA also has a requirement to approve checklists, one of their officers told me if you presented them with the flight manual procedures as a checklist it would be rejected.
Almost all Cessna flight manuals give a procedure for take off and a procedure for landing, written in a checklist format. Are CAsA seriously suggesting that the PNF should be reading these and the PIC responding as the aircraft hurls down the runway?
All major airliners now operate with scan flow Check systems, and very short kill item checklists. Why? because its safer.
The philosophy in the USA is the FM "procedures" must be adhered to, the "checklist" is another matter.
There is an FOI who resides in a country NSW centre who is notorious for his opinionated obstruction when it comes to FCOMS, PART B's or alternative flight manuals.
Whatever you want to call them they nearly all contain a statement in the opening paragraph "Notwithstanding anything contained in this manual the AFM takes precedence"
Which sort of begs the question, what are these manuals for?
Other than to drive CP's insane trying to get them approved oops accepted.
Generally the CP finishes up having to accept what he knows will at best be unworkable and at worst unsafe.
He/she of course must bear full responsibility, CAsA on the other hand accepts none, "we accept, we dont approve" (Bul..sh.t!! they heavily influence the contents of these manuals, which largely contains vast amounts of the AFM cut and pasted and other procedures formented in the minds of unqualified and inexperienced FOI's, I know of one instance where an FOI, not even type rated on the aircraft, issued an NCN against an aircrew following flight manual procedures, because he though his way was the way to go. Imagine what the lawyers would make of that if it ever came down to a blame game?)
The answer to this is to seek manufacturer "No objection" to a "check System".
The system should explain your scan flow, scrupliously following the AFM procedures, Abbreviated cockpit "Checklists" and an expansion of these to explain the how's and whyfors.
The manufacturers are very accomodating and will generally issue a NOC.
You then have something that works and CAsA will find hard to not accept because it puts the liability back on them.
Unfortunately the new paradigm of pilots flying to scripts being actively promoted by CAsA is fraught with danger. You cannot micro manage flying operation from behind a desk at Fort Fumble, a PIC is in essence a manager of his aircraft, whether its a 747 or a tiger moth, at some stage they need people to get off their backs and let them get on with it.