New Cessna 172 Checklist

[eject]

Apologies if I'm in the wrong place but I'd appreciate some pointers on where to get a good checklist for the new (2000) C172 I'm learning to fly in. The checklist that came with the aircraft is to my mind abysmal. e.g. if the engine was warm, you didn't need to ..........

[EGCC4284]

Get a AFI checklist,
very very good

------------------
A BIT EXTRA FOR MUM.

[Centaurus]

With all due respect, surely you don't need the crutch of a written checklist to help you fly an iddy biddy CESSNA. Certainly you should read the manufacturer's recommendations and learn them by heart. Checklists for these small aircraft are simply not necessary. 55,000 wartime pilots can't all be wrong. If they did not need written checklists to fly Tiger Moths, Spitfires and Lancasters, then it does seem rather superfluous for a Cessna 172 or similar trainer. Unfortunately, the use of written checklists for the easiest of trainers has become a cottage industry with big money to be made. Remember that as you pore over line upon line of what to check next, the VDO meter is ticking over and swallowing your hard earned pennies. And the instructor is gleefully rubbing his hands as he sees his student reading his lines and putting money in the instructors deep pockets. A pox on checklists and the people that insist they are good things for the soul. Big jets, yes. Lighties - no way.

[This message has been edited by Centaurus (edited 20 March 2001).]

[HugMonster]

Centaurus - no, no, no, no, NO

Use a checklist every time.

This is not wartime. It is not a matter of life and death that he geats airborne FAST. I don't know about pilots in your neck of the woods, but I know many of RAF pilots who used checklists.

Failure to use checklists leads to complacency, to missed items, to bad practices...

As an instructor and Flight Safety Officer, I would be appalled if any more pilots went the way of a former Chief Pilot of mine, whose shutdown checklist appeared to be:-

Switch off engines Get out Head for pub


I am disappointed that, since you list your interests as "flight safety issues" you should encourage an apparently low-experience pilot not to use a checklist.

[invalid entry]

I am totally with HugMonster. By all means memorize airborne checklists, but those checks done on the ground, and particularly before take-off checklist SHOULD be done from the checklist. It takes almost no extra time and prevents omission of vital actions. I am appalled at the way you have ridiculed the guy for wanting to do things properly and safely.

[Hung start]

I´m with Hugmonster,

Centaurus, funny to read in your profile about Flight safety issues....... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

[captain marvellous]

Centaurus is a long-time-ago has been. He is a self-certified expert who has forgotten to take his pills. Please excuse him. He's just frustrated with his quest to find some more Cessna 152 fuel taps to peruse.

[Squawk 8888]

Centaurus, checklists are for everyone. I read a report a couple of years ago about a Canadian Airlines DC-10 that took off without slats extended because the crew forgot- a simulation from the FDR tape showed that it climbed out less than 5 knots above the stall http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

------------------
Nuke the rainforest- it's more efficient than logging.

[Wrong Stuff]

It's also not just a matter of how complex the a/c is. Many of us often don't fly for a month or two (especially with the really sh**ty weather we've been having).

I have enough trouble just remembering what the Frida and Hazle checks stand for ;-)

[Speedbird252]

Well said all.

777 or 172, checklists ARE for all. If you want to fly, then do it properly. It is important to commit regular checks and emergency drills to memory, for obvious reasons. But anyone who does there walkround, start up and power checks from memory is going to get a wake up call one day. Probably at 500 feet on the climb out, an engine failure and.....oh look, forgot to turn the fuel pump on!

...now what....?

[HugMonster]

eject, you'll probably have got the message by now that Centaurus is talking though his arse. Disregard EVERYTHING that he said.

On the use of checks, there is a lot of good advice above in this thread.

Memorise your emergency checks. You'll need them one day. Sit in the aircraft on the ground with checklist in hand and run through them. Make sure you can put your hand to all the knobs and tits, smoothly and fast. Doublecheck what you're doing.

In an emergency, run through the drills from memory. Once you've handled it, get the checklist out and make sure you've done everything.

Memorise your airborne checks. This helps if you're juggling kneeboard, chart, chinagraph, cup of coffee etc. not to have to pick up a checklist. Run through the checks. Then drink the coffee and stow the empty cup somewhere it won't drift forward into the well and jam the rudder pedals, pick up the checklist and read it.

Checks on the ground are not so important to memorise. Therefore, probably more important to use the checklist.

Here's the nub of it:-

It's a checklist. It's not a dolist. Use it every time to make sure you've alreadycarried out the necessary action.

That goes for all checks. Use it every time to make sure. Don't be a slave to it, though. If you find you have to get it out to prompt you on your next action, you need to spend more time learning the checks.

[Centaurus]

Having just spent 4 hours cooped up in a 737 simulator teaching people the virtues of the scan then checklist call-out policy of Boeing, I return to pprune to find alligators snapping at my heels.

Leaving aside the personal invectives which have been an all too familiar unpleasant aspect of some correspondence, it is clear I misjudged the almost religious fervour associated with usage of checklists for training aircraft of the C172 et al.

My view of GA checklists as a crutch to remind you of the bleeding obvious, stems from a time when I was teaching a student of another instructor. The student had 12 hours dual under his belt and in the opinion of his instructor was ready for solo. It seems on this occasion, the student had left his checklist at home. When asked to perform his walk-around and before-start checks sans checklist, he confessed that without his checklist to tell what to do, he didn't have a clue. We finally got the show on the road by use of the " old fashioned wartime" left to right scan (used with good effect in modern jet airliners) - which he found easy to accomplish.

We flew, he landed safely, and I asked him to stop the engine on arrival at the flying club. Again, without the availibility of his written checklist, he was unable to recall the close down sequence. Yet he was considered safe for first solo?

A local Air Ambulance company had Cessna 402's. Roller blind checklists were neatly installed on the coaming. The chief pilot put in every imaginable item, a total of 157 of read and do calls, in his attempt to fill up usable space. The opening checklist call was "Good Morning", and No 157 was "Have a Good day". Real professional stuff.

These aircraft could be seen taxying at speed on wet tarmacs, pilots furiously winding the scroll as they performed high power engine checks on the run dragging the brakes. Pity the image of professionalism was spoiled when one pilot, taxying with a misted up windscreen, collected the wing tip of a nearby aircraft as he was shining his torch on the roller blind checklist. Believe me, it really happened.

Or the student that lost 500 feet during a holding pattern after he put his head down to read the descent and approach checks from the written checklist on his knee board. Remember, this is all single pilot stuff - not multi-crew.

Written checklists are appropiate in multi-crew airliners where drills are scannned first by heart, then vital actions confirmed by checklist read by the non-flying pilot.
But in single pilot trainers, using written checklists as a crutch to memory is contrary to the object of staying ahead of the aeroplane. One rarely sees the pilots of a passenger jet conducting a full walk-around pre-flight inspection with a checklist book in hand and torch in the other. Ground engineers either. Not in front of boarding passengers anyway and also not in view of the sticky beaks peering through the airport lounge windows.

We had a Super Connie gracing our airport last week. Lovely aircraft. Saw the flight engineer doing a walk around too. Absent from his gnarled old hands was a checklist.

Blind reliance on written checklists in light single pilot trainers fosters the insidious combination of false sense of security in one's ability in that the checklist will cover everything, laziness in that one cannot be bothered to study the drills and finally the uncomfortable awareness that without the crutch of a written checklist, one really cannot cope with normal flying procedures. In all the above observations I am discussing the use of written checklists for small trainers that are designed for one pilot operation.

[Luftwaffle]

Failure to use checklists for engine start and run up will result in failure of a PPL or CPL flight test in Canada.

[Wrong Stuff]

I hate to point these out because I don't agree with them, but there are a couple of interesting columns on AvWeb about exactly this topic:

Throw away that stupid checklist!
http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0001.html

Checklists redux
http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0002.html

The interesting common link between John Deakin who wrote the above columns, Centaurus and all the pilots in Centaurus's examples is that they are all full-time pros who are immersed in aviation. If they don't fly every day, then it's at least every week or a few times a month. When was the last time the John Deakin or the 'gnarled old Super Connie engineer' had a month when they didn't even think about airplanes? Probably before puberty! That makes a huge difference which I don't think they appreciate.

Something that may be second nature to them certainly isn't to me. With up to a month between flights, it would only be a matter of time before I started forgetting to check some things - maybe that the doors are shut properly. And once you've started forgetting things it seems normal not to check them because that's what you did last time. Nobody's going to point it out until the next check flight. Sure, taking off with a door unlocked isn't by itself a killer, but it could easily be one of those links in a chain that you often see in accident reports.

[Hung start]

But Centaurus, Centaurus... You can use all the bad examples that you want. None of these people got in harms way because they were using checklists in a single pilot airplane. They got in harms way, because they were using checklists in a single pilot airplane at the wrong time...
If you want to, I can come up with more examples, where people had incidents/accidents that could have been avoided had they had a checklist to cover for their less than perfect memory when performing "flow checks"...

Where I´m at, you´ll also fail a flighttest if not using a checklist.
As somebody else said: We, who fly everyday, might do fine without written checklists, but many small single pilot aircraft, are flown by people who don´t fly on a regular basis.. To indicate to them, that written checklists are not the safest way to go, is in my mind crazy..!
And yes, I was once an instructor as well, doing my 6 hours a day in Cessnas. Could do it all backwards in my sleep. But I like to think, that I helped more than one of my students staying out of trouble later on, by stressing the importance of having a written checklist, and using it, no matter what type of aircraft..

[HugMonster]

Centaurus, you are arguing against the use of checklists based on an illustration of a student pilot who didn't know his checks.

Sorry, but this is total nonsense.

Sure, that student was not ready for solo.

As I've said above, they should know their checks. Well thought-out scans are also a very useful tool.

But to go from there to "Don't use a checklist" is a completely idiotic conclusion, and more than this, is dangerous.

In my advice to eject - anyone else care to comment on it? - I state that it is important for him to know the checks, particularly the airborne ones. He should also know ALL the procedures. To be unable to do the simplest things without a checklist is simply crazy. Having done everything, he should then get out the checklist and make sure that nothing has been missed.

Your Air Ambulance illustration is not an argument against the use of a checklist. It is about sensible use of a checklist. Likewise, descent and approach checks should be complete well before joining the circuit.

Show all the bad misuse of a checklist all you want. It does not make TOTAL ABSENCE of a checklist any safer.

Please stop advising people to adopt dangerous practice.

Use a checklist - every time. As a checklist, not a do list.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Speaking as an Engineer, I'd never consign to memory anything I could reasonably look up. One term wrong in an equation because I thought it was consigned to memory correctly could cause disaster.

Speaking as a pilot, I prefer Mnemonics backed up by a checklist. Then, I can use the checklists when time permits, and mnemonics when...

(1) I haven't time. (This would include emergencies, en-route checks in a light aircraft, downwind and pre-landing checks.)
(2) I'm in an open cockpit and don't want to lose the FRCs over the side.
(3) Err, those are the only good reasons I can think off.

The best solution of all is when flying with another pilot / observer, use mnemonics and get them to check you've got it all right on the checklist as you go through. Some checks (such as shutdown) it's safe to do from memory then check on the FRCs yourself.

Having said that, after 50+ hours on a particular type, one can become sufficiently familiar to disregard the FRCs, but it's not a particularly good habit. I did see a friend manage an entire sortie in a Hawker Hunter without reference to the FRCs, but he did have 750hrs on type (and a somewhat above average level of ability).

G

[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 22 March 2001).]

[Pub User]

I've instructed on a variety of helicopters, for a variety of organizations who had differing policies on the use of checklists.
I found that people who use the 'challenge & response' method make about the same number of mistakes as those who have to memorize them. In my view single-pilot ops should always use memorized checklists, as it's poor airmanship to be 'head-down' reading a checklist on a pan with engines/props/rotors running.

[matspart3]

I can't agree with Centauraus either.
If eject chooses to throw away his checklist, at what stage of his flying career should he pick it up again?...do you need one for IR training?, what about multi?, MCC would be fun without one and you sure as hell aren't going to get let lose on a 737 with a 'kick the tyres, light the fires' attitude! Setting high standars from the outset of one's flying can only be a good thing....even if you only want to be a PPL.

I accept that over reliance on a written checklist can be a bad thing and may be an indication of the 'wrong stuff' in certain individuals, personally, I only use mine on the ground i.e. when there is no pressure. I know the emergency drills by heart, together with a left right scan and I use mnemonics for all other airborne checks.

I flew with an ATPL friend of mine some time ago (in his aeroplane), who has the same attitude to checklists in 'puddlejumpers' as Centauraus.
Whilst I have the utmost confidence in his ability to handle the thing competently should the worst happen, he looked pretty silly when the Tower asked him to put the anti-coll and nav lights on as we taxied out at dusk and sillier still as we climbed out squawking 'Hijack' which had previously misdialled and left on.

[Centaurus]

Unfortunately, in the real world of the wilds of Northern Australia, few pilots use written checklists, and for those CPL pilots who get their first job flying C210 into bush strips, or those in New Guinea doing 25 landings a day in a 206, there is simply no time for the leisurely reading of checklists.

Pilots brought up on a diet of read and do written words are going to get a culture shock when the boss says get this show on the road and cut the crap with checklists.

If the active use of GA checklists were that vital to safety as some correspondents insist, then surely the Air Safety authorities in NT and New Guinea would legislate for them.

[Techman]

I must agree that whatever the size or operation of aeroplane, a checklist is an essential tool to safe operation.

I have said before on this forum and I will say it again, I refuse to fly with anybody who do not use a checklist. Thinking that all can be memorized is a surefire way to make mistakes. And as we all know in this business mistakes are what kills.

Sure, students should know the essential of the checklist. But memorizing is going to lead to disaster.

[HugMonster]

Centaurus, I have flown parachute aircraft doing huge numbers of lifts per day.

I have also flown BN2's (about as simple as they get!) into rough strips in the Caribbean, doing a similar number of sectors per day as you quote.

And I still used a checklist.

If, as you appear to imply, there simply is not time, then there is something seriously wrong with the way you are operating, because expedience is being given priority over flight safety. I doubt that any authority would legislate for anything that is a basic ingredient of what is generally accepted as good airmanship. You might as well legislate that a pilot must look out of the window on his take-off roll...

We are not talking about using a bit of paper as a "read and do list". We're talking about having all the actions done and out of the way, then getting the checklist out and making sure you haven't missed anything.

I would worry about working with any pilot you've trained not to use a checklist.

In a multi-crew flightdeck, when checks are read using challenge and response, you find things that have been missed. It happens frequently.

Where there is nobody to challenge you, those missed items are not going to get picked up if you don't challenge yourself with a checklist. One day, that missed item may mean a fatal accident.

Please stop teaching lazy and dangerous practices.

[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 23 March 2001).]

[Bedowin]

Goodness me, such emotion.

Try reading a check list when you are part of an 8 aircraft formation. I flew fighters for many years and there are certain things that must be committed to memory.

Check lists by design were prodcued on the challenge and response system. Not too many people to talk to when you are single pilot IFR in alight twin at night? (Notwithstanding the fact that the lighting wont allow you to read too much of it anyway)

I have instructed in tandems (supersonics) and side by sides and with the correct PROCEDURES and follow-up simple check-lists (from memory) the operations have been safe for years.

Oh yes, I am also an airline pilot and agree that in the more complex aircraft (not necessarily modern ones) a challenge and response system is required....but puuuullleeeeesssee, in a simple aircraft, surely we can be expected to remember a couple of important items like TMPFFIHHC?

And as for modern aircraft, have a look at the B-767 and B747-400 check lists. Pretty basic.....like 5-6 itmes in the before takeoff check list.

And Oh yes again......I fly my own own aircraft for fun and it really is fun.

Finally, can't we be nice to each other and drop all the personal abuse. Some of the geriatrics flew in a couple of wars to allow us the freedom of speech and democracy, so let's be kind to them...and all of us will enjoy each other's company more.

Meanwhile, happy days to the good guys and may the jerks remain grounded!

[OzExpat]

Getting airborne fast in WW2 without a checklist? Sure!! Why not, when you have an engineer assigned to look after your aircraft, strap you in and even start the bloodey engine for you! And, of course, the pilots involved were flying every day and, often, several times every day -- 7 days a week! So, Centaurus would you want to use that argument to abandon Flight and Duty Time Limitations? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

So, okay then, if checklists aren't needed in single-engine, single pilot bugsmashers, however you define them, but ARE needed in the larger more complex aircraft, where does the habit form? Where does the indoctrination begin? I sure don't want to be teaching a 1000 hr pilot how to use a bloodey checklist in the B200 just coz he never needed it in the BN2 or whatever!

I, too, have been an instructor. Sometimes working in integrated commercial schools, sometimes in the less glamourous schools. In either case, it was never completely clear to me whether a trainee would end up in regular, gainful employment in commercial operations.

Some trainees never made the grade to the school's standards. Others did, but never took up the professional career. How were we, as instructors, supposed to tell the difference? So we got our students into the checklist habit.

Sure, it always starts as a "do" list but, as the training progresses, it becomes a confirmation of the vital actions initiated by the pilot. Geez, that exactly what it is in the B200!! Amazing huh! :rolleyes:

I've also had quite a bit of experience in PNG, as you would be aware Centaurus and have done my share of 25-sector days in the hills. Everything from a C152 to an Aztec with Robertson STOL kit. Oh yeah, even an Islander or two.

All these machines ... ALL OF THEM were fitted with those plastic flip-up, flip-down checklists. And I always used them and always MADE THE TIME to use them. Why? I didn't want to overlook anything in my scans and vital actions.

Just as an example ... the pre-landing checklist had an item that prompted consideration of airfield elevation, density height and surface condition. Pretty important on a 25-sector day into lots of different places at different elevations and different types of landing surface, slope, yada yada yada. My shortest flight time between take-off and landing was about 3 minutes and I STILL managed to get thru all the checks in the list.

It's a matter of managing your aeroplane, your flight and your safety!

And what about the days when you had to step from one aircraft type to another? Dunno about you, mate, but I always needed a few minutes to adjust my thinking to a different type of engine and systems management. The checklist was a great way to do that.

Is this reality coming back to you yet? It's been a while since I had to do any of that "stooging around the hills" sh!t. If I had to climb back into a C206 or the like right now, I'd be grateful for the checklist.

And now to the other point you so conveniently ignored about flying around the bush strips in PNG. You had a training pilot with you for quite a while at first, then you were checked on the various routes and into the various strips. While this was (and remains) a legal requirement, the operators have a vested interest in it too.

This is because, while one prang a year is good for the insurance payout and a day (at most) of bad publicity, a second prang in the same year invites scrutiny of the worst kind. No operator wants that coz they start losing money in a situation where they run a business that's intended to make money.

So they want their flights to be as safe as possible too. That attitude is even more evident these days than it ever used to be -- and that is a good thing.

Checklists and airmanship, airmanship and checklists. It's all the same to me and always has been. You teach it to students from the outset and you end up saving lives and keeping your employer in business. By keeping him in business, you keep yourself in work.

And, even now, I've barely addressed the pilots who don't fly as regularly as the rest of us. But, then, I reckon enough has already been by others about that and I will simply endorse their views. Have a great day in your 737 mate.

------------------
Once a king, always a king.
But once a nite's barely adequate!

[This message has been edited by OzExpat (edited 24 March 2001).]

[Airking]

Sure you don´t need a checklist on a 172.
Everytime I have a student with that attitude, I simply switch the fuel selector to closed and order a lenghty engine check.
The sudden engine stop usually makes it clear!
I´m instructing PPL and also do typeratings and IFR checks on B90/B200´s,and since I was operating single Pilot very often, I learned the hard way to use checklist.
Then beside safety there´s another point :
have a screening with a major airline and don´t order checklists, you´ll have failed 100%. So why should one NOT learn it the correct way around from scratch ?

On the other hand, checklist should be short and logically, otherwise they will not be used.

[Speedbird252]

So if you are a PPL, CPL or ATPL....
what point do you decide that you dont need to use them anymore?

All ive heard is that bla bla yeh on a 757 bla blah.........and that there are only a few pre take off checks etc. The people doing these checks probably have a couple of thousand hours behind them, half of that reading checklists. Many PPL`s want to be ATPL`s, and if running thru the checklists makes them feel them more proffesional then let `em.

------------------
If it aint a Boeing, then, erm, its probably an Airbus

[Speedbird252]

Well said AirKing, let `em know that they use it for a reason, and then spring a surprise on `em!!!

woop woop........

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have read the BMAA microlight instructors handbook, which requires the use of a mnemonic checklist (that is from memory, but to a standard order). If the BMAA considers them necessary for a microlight, what excuse has anybody else got?

G

[HugMonster]

Genghis, when I started gliding (age 16) used to have them for the Ka7 trainer as well. Even less to do than in a microlight!

The level of complacency that allows people to think they can get into an aircraft (any aircraft) and fly it without a checklist will, sooner or later, kill people.

[Speedbird252]

Well put again hugs and geng the eng, Difficult to put it all in brief, but I reckon you both just did.

Regards.

------------------
If it aint a Boeing, then, erm, its probably an Airbus

[Flight Deck]

All this talk about use of checklists makes me sick. Lets face it, if you need a checklist for a small single engined aircraft, well maybe you shouldn’t be flying. From the word go most flying schools introduce checklists to students on simple C-152, C-172 and so on. It’s all a big time waster; schools seam to spend up to 15 min’s on the ground doing checks. All great for the school big $$$$$ coming in, most students don’t have lots of money to burn. Students can spend all the time they need at home studying aircraft procedures and checks, it’s free.
I have seen checklists printed by a major Australian company. They have checklists for all kinds of singles used in flying schools.

I didn’t know a C-152 had retractable gear, or a variable pitch prop?????

If a checklist is to be used, it should be in accordance to the pilot-operating handbook. Not Joe Blow from down the street.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for good airmanship and safety.

When I am flying into a busy MBZ, I would like to know that the pilot of a light aircraft ahead is looking outside, not trying to read a bloody checklist.

[This message has been edited by Flight Deck (edited 28 March 2001).]

[Lawyerboy]

Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but we seem to be confusing preflight checks with enroute/landing checks. Of course you can memorise the enroute/landing checks - let's face it, it doesn't take much to remember your FREDA checks - and most of them can, and often are, done perfectly safely. There's not much to commit to memory.

But when you're on the ground, why the big rush? Preflight checks on something like a PA38 are easy enough to remember, but why rely on your memory, especially as a low hours PPL student, when you have the time to go through it all with a checklist? Does it really take that much longer to run your finger down a list and action whatever needs actioning than doing it all from memory? I don't think so.

[SKYYACHT]

IMHO the use of checklists is to ensure that nothing Vital is missed in the preflight phase. This surely must apply to any type of craft that is going to be taking to the sky. I have seen/watched numbers of GA pilots who's idea of a preflight check is to undo the tiedowns. We live/operate and work in a safety culture, and what better way of reinforcing good practices can we offer aircrew. Complacency often kills. Furthermore, the pilot who posted the message was looking to be "professional", and this is to be applauded, not denigrated. If such a professional attitude is learned early, then the transition to bigger/larger aircraft is eased, especially in an Multi Crew environment.

The defence rests.

Tailwinds

[HugMonster]

It's really quite simple, folks. This is not rocket science.

Nobody is talking about using checklists as a "do" lost. If you don't know your airborne checks, you shouldn't be there.

If you're really bothered about the money you're spending for 5 minutes extra on the ground getting yourself organised and the aircraft configured correctly etc. etc. then you should give up now, because you'll never be able to afford it.

No, a C152 is not a complex aircraft. So where do all these idiots think the line is for which aircraft you use a checklist for and which you don't? VP props? Retractable gear? Both? Turbochargers? Multi engine? Give me a break.

People will always be slower when learning than once they've got it sussed. Do NOT teach them cavalier attitudes. Teach them professionalism. Otherwise, once they THINK they're cool hotshot aviators, procedures will go to pot. I've seen it happen. I've had to instruct almost from scratch a guy who wanted an IMC rating. He had several hundred hours in his own Cub. Any time I told him to do a FREDA check, or to run after landing checks, his answer was "I was never taught to bother about things like that". This guy was downright dangerous. His attitude was that he knew it all, he had no need of a checklist. Actually, he knew just about nothing. He didn't even check the DG on lining up on the runway (I once saw it 40 degrees out, and let him sweat. He was really quite angry with me - "Why didn't you tell me it was that far out?"

His problem was complacency. Ensuring all checks are done is professionalism. He couldn't handle the concept.

In the air, run through all the actions. Then get the checklist out and doublecheck yourself. Multicrew you have someone else checking you, and THEN you still run the checks. Singlecrew if you miss something, how are you ever going to catch the omission without a checklist? If you think you're that clever that you never will miss anything, then let me know who you are, because I never want to fly in the back of any aircraft that you're flying.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Instructors could do worse than telling their students to go and buy a suitable notebook from WH Smiths and make them generate their own checklist. So long as it meets the basic minima of the POH, a degree of individualism (agreed before use with their instructor) might create a familiarity and respect for the checklist that wouldn't otherwise be there.

G

[Flight Deck]

To all the above, who think they know so much. I ask this,

How long would it take to perform a pre takeoff check in a B737, B767 etc…?

I mean a C172 has many more systems than a B737, so 15 min’s should be ok… try telling that to your new employer.

Seeing a student pilot sitting on a run-up bay reading his checklist, taking all the time he needs. Great nothing should go wrong, you hope. If the **** hits the fan at 300ft he will have no time to read his checklist, but may have no choice.

In reply to above, do you really need a check for the cabin doors in light singles, they are beside you aren’t they.

If being un-current is your problem, maybe you should read the POH before going for a flight. The checklist seams to be relied on as a second hand FO.

Lets face it, with all you have to play with in a C172, I give myself 2 min’s top’s to set it all up.

If a student needs a list to help him set up him aircraft before flight, well maybe it should come from the POH, not a printing company.

[HugMonster]

FlightDeck, I see nothing in your post that argues against using a checklist.

Yes, I am totally against a checklist that has unnecessary items in it, and against people, particularly low-houred studes and PPL's being unfamiliar with the aircraft.

But that does not mean they have no use for a checklist.

Would you bet your life on never missing a vital item without a checklist?

[Speedbird252]

Hugmonster is still spot on. People learning to fly need to get used to doing things in a methodical and meaning-full manner. Flight Deck is the big "I am" and frankly I dont give a $hit. If in time they get used to committing checks to memory, then good. They may have no interst in 737`s and 767`s. If they commit the right info to memory, they will be able to do everything perfectly. On the ground the payment doesnt start till they release the brakes, so if you want to use a checklist on your walkround, then do it. The same as start up and taxi - its no use FlightDeck whinging on others behalf about hourly rates, we know about them. Its our money, if we want to spend it making our aircraft secure for departure, rather than presume its ok because we just spoke to the instructor that bought it back, thats up to us. Let us get on with it. I do understand what you are getting at, but it wont suit the bulk of GA Pilots, not until of course, that they are as godly as you.

How can you tell when Flight Deck is at your party?

You dont, he tells you......

[Centaurus]

Speedbird. You seem to have an unfortunate habit of making personal attacks on readers who post discussion points on Pprune. It is this bad attitude that quickly puts the shutters up on those of us who enjoy an intelligent technical discourse. By all means add your bit to any subject on Pprune which takes your fancy - but do try to maintain a modicum of plain old fashioned good manners at the same time. Your rather childish petulant attacks on Flightdeck are lowering the usually high standard of debate on Tech Log. Now be a good boy and go and take another tablet....

[Speedbird252]

I agree, and I appologise, bad day. It just feels like what he says goes. People learning to fly arent all wannabe jet jockeys, and saying that if a pilot needs to use a checklist, he shouldnt be flying at all? That attitude winds me up, and again, im sorry for having a go but lets remember that safety is the priority, not being a smartarse.

Sorry flightdeck, lets get back to a decent level of discussion.

[Centaurus]

Full marks to you Speedbird for your level headed reply. Now to clarify my view on checklists as a policy, and then I won't bore people any more. It has been my personal experience with ab-initio students that if they are given (or purchase)a checklist to operate the aircraft, then more often and not they will thumb down the list line by line in order to find out what to do next. This is not the most efficient way to go. Because, inexorably the student will now always rely on this checklist as a crutch.

Faced without a checklist that has suddenly blown out the door, the student stumbles nervously desperately trying to remember what item constituted line No 7 on the approach checks. Remember, this is all hypothetical.

If he had been taught to use his checklist as a confirmation of drills already completed, then he would have gained self reliance and confident in the knowledge that he knew all the right drills in the first place. This is how the game is played in the big jets. Do the drills by visual scan and action, then haul out the company checklist from wherever it is stowed in the cockpit, and read it.

If flying schools insisted that their checklists were executed that way, ie scan then confirm afterwards, then the printed checklist becomes an aid - not a teacher. A printed checklist can never cover every single item that may come under the term "airmanship". It is patently ludicrous to have such checklist items as check for wrinkles under the fuselage for evidence of a previous heavy landing. Or Wiggle the wings up and down to check for water that may have settled between spars in the fuel tanks. Total reliance on a written list for a walk-around inspection will ensure that those items above, and similar gems of wisdom, will not be checked. A good instructor will brief you on the nasty little things to be found during a walk around - which may not be specifically written down. That, then is the insidious danger to a student who has been brought up on a strict checklist diet.

While my personal preference is that I do not advocate written checklists in small training aircraft - for the reasons explained ad nauseum previously - I can understand that there are opposing points of view. That's life.

[Flight Deck]

Speedbird252 thank you for your apology.

I have to add that I’m not the only person making comments in this thread. The replies I entered where of my opinion only, and not to be taken to heart. It seems that some people have used this thread to make personal attacks on Centaurus.

My point is that I have seen many checklists printed into small books. Sad to say I have never come across a good one. The best checklist available in my opinion comes directly from the Pilot Operating Handbook.

Thats is if you need a checklist, get it from the POH.


[This message has been edited by Flight Deck (edited 02 April 2001).]

[HugMonster]

If I understand everyone correctly, nobody is therefore opposed to checklists per se.

Centaurus is opposed to misuse of checklists (as am I) and FlightDeck is opposed to bad checklists (as am I).

My advice to a student would be to use a good one, making their own from the POH if necessary, and use it, not as a crutch because they can't be bothered to spend some time sitting in the aircraft on the ground when the weather's too bad to do circuits, and not as a do list but as a checklist.

But most certainly to use one.

[OzExpat]

And I said much the same thing back on the previous page. However, I did take it a step further because we have to teach the student to do the checks in the first place, or they will never be scans supported by a checklist.

For sure, by its' very name, it is a list of things upon which the pilot should check himself/herself. That makes it, in fact, a very beneficial defacto effoh.

It is my contention that most pilots started their flight training using some sort of checklist. If they had good instructors along the way, the checklist -- which started out basically as a "DO list, gradually assumes it proper roll as a support tool. That is, as opposed to staying on as a crutch.

We all had to get in the habit of doing all the checks -- and doing them in a logical and meaningful sequence. How on earth did we all learn that particular skill?? I know how I learned it initially and I know how I passed that learning along to my trainees.

I reckon that the best default situation is to have a checklist, rather than try to wing it without one. This conecpt is as true in a C152 as in a B747 or anything else. You certainly must get to the stage of performing all scans and vital actions at the appropriate time and then confirm off a checklist. But you have to learn them in the first place to know what the hell you're doing in the second place.

The real bottom line, in relation to the post that started this thread, is that we should be encouraging use of the checklist with low-time infrequent flyers.

------------------
Once a king, always a king.
But once a nite's barely adequate!

[HugMonster]

Spot on, Oz.

[Checkboard]

I am actually a bit surprised that this thread has lasted for so long!

When I instructed in light aircraft, I issued students with a checklist, but required them to learn and perform checks from memory (using a mnemonic checklist) while flying.

The arguement that "if it is good enough for the airlines, it must be good for light aircraft" completely ignores the different environments. It is a horses for courses thing.

Written checklists have a lower propensity for error, but require more "heads-in" time. Mnenomic checks may lead to a higher chance for error, but are less distracting. Post-action checklists (the "scan then check" system) require more time to complete, and thus greater flightdeck time managment.

So with light, single pilot, aircraft where the consequences of an error are small, and the traffic is busy (as most operations are based on "see and aviod") the mnemonic check is appropriate. Forget to set the flaps in a 172, on 99% of runways, and you will hardly notice. Miss sighting another aircraft and you are in serious trouble.

Single pilot, complex aircraft (like a King Air) require a greater care in system settings, and so a written check becomes appropriate. The single pilot situation doesn't really allow for the longer post-action "scan and check" system, so an action check is a good compromise. Ticking off items as you go is faster than doing items by scan, and then checking them off a list, but you still have the memory protection of a written checklist.

Jet multi-crew, operating in an environment with positive trafic separation and with the flightdeck managment and co-ordination skills provided by multi-crew training, make the use of a post action "check and scan" checklist system appropriate. The big advantage of this, is that it allows for substantial cross checking. Each item can be done by one crew member, then checked by the other during the checklist. Double checks like that are not particularly relevent in single pilot situations. (Yes, I know checking something again in single pilot ops is always good, practically however when you miss something the first time the presupposition that you have completed that item can cause you to perform a false second check.)

My two cents anyway.

[This message has been edited by Checkboard (edited 04 April 2001).]

[HugMonster]

Miss the carb heat and you can be in serious trouble...

Miss switching the fuel pump on in a PA28 and you can be in trouble - or switching fuel tanks - or anything.

Sorry, Checkboard, I just don't agree with you at all.

[OzExpat]

Huggy... my turn to say "spot on", mate!

Checkie... how regularly did your students fly? Were they all looking for a career in professional aviation? Or, perhaps at least some of them were only going as far as a PPL? I don't ask that last question to demean PPLs in any way ... the simple fact is that most of them don't fly quite as often as the rest of us.

Practice is what makes perfect. Without the continuity, what chance does any pilot have of keeping any checklist in memory? Having been an instructor myself, I know the answer to that question as well as you do.

How many times have you heard of an aeroplane landing on its belly? The checklist, itself, won't prevent such an occurrence, but it can sure as hell be argued that the "memory system" failed the acid test. It's all discipline, of course, but even THAT has to start somewhere.

I've always believed in starting with the imposed discipline of a checklist. It lays the ground rules for good airmanship, no matter how you interpret that word.

The best checklist system I've found, to cover all those airborne checks, is the type that mounts on the glareshield -- plastic tags that you flip down in the pre-take-off and climbout checks, or flip up in the approach and pre-landing checks.

They facilitate looking outside the plane as you're going along. They hold the place that you get up to in the checks, which is just great if you get distracted for any reason. And they're easy to use. They're not on all aircraft but I've flown quite a few aircraft, even in commercial operations, that were fitted with them. Made life very much easier, especially on high workload, short sector flights.

------------------
Once a king, always a king.
But once a nite's barely adequate!

[kabz]

I recently hitched a ride with a couple of instructors in a seminole and was extremely glad that they went through the takeoff checklist line-by-line.

It turned out that in one of the last things they checked, the master was only on on the battery side.

It was certainly nice to know that we were assured of power, especially flying into IMC, as we did that day.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I flew as observer a little while ago, in a country where English is not the language. I was preparing something else when I thought that the pilot was doing the externals, I found out afterwards from a 3rd party that the chap hadn't done any. He certainly didn't do anything in the cockpit, simply started the engine and took off whilst I was waiting for his take-off brief. The take-off run was ludicrously long, we discovered afterwards (when the tyre destroyed itself on the next sortie, taking the nosewheel with it) that the tyre pressure was well below limits.

I have to confess for a preference where it's reasonable to do so to use Mnemonics backed up by an available checklist. Used well they are as thorough, faster, and keep your head outside. However, I'd only do that on a type I know well.

There are a lot of checklists I recently found, downloadable at http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/HandlingNotes/index.html


G

[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 06 April 2001).]

[fireflybob]

If had been given a penny for all the times I had heard the use of checklists debated then I might be a rich man.
However, I am firmly in favour of checklists and agree wholeheartedly with Hugmonster et al.
Another factor in favour is that it is much easier to achieve a better degree of standardisation when checklists are used, otherwise you get the "well so-and-so told me to do it this way" syndrome where, as an instructor, you can end up using precious time discussing trivia.
All this assumes that the use of checklists is taught correctly.
Having seen the civil and the military way of "doing it" I have to say that, in my opinion, the RAF are living in the past by sticking to the memory way of doing things in their ab initio training.
Obviously, emergency checks and "airborne" checks etc need to be memorised but, as has been stated previously, the checklist can then be referred to in order to ensure that all actions have been carried out correctly.

------------------