How Quick are your checks?

[Pace]

Inspired by the " How Rude" Thread regarding a Pitts pulling out and taking off in front of a training aircraft made me think.

How often have I asked for an intersection departure at places like Cranfield when faced with a gaggle of training aircraft ahead all going through checks at a painfully slow rate?

I was once in Shannon and walked out to a seneca at the same time as two Canadian pilots mounted a Cargo 747.

The cargo 747 had fired up and was well ahead of me on the taxiway for his takeoff even though we both started from cold at the same time.

I fly shotgun in a King Air the owner pilot missed a slot and was sent back for a 1.5 hr delay due to his painfully slow 20 minute check regime as he missed his slot.

On another occasion in Nice I had six minutes to make a takeoff from cold in a citation! We made it.

Some pilots seem to fly around the preflight and taxi checks with their hands darting around the panel like lightning bolts! Others seem to go at one rate "very slow".

How do you deal with your checks? Can you do them from memory with a quick glance down the list to confirm or are you a one speed pilot?
There is an arguement that you dont really know your plane until you can fly without a check list.

Pace

[W2k]

Being just out of training myself, it's not a problem I've ever had. However, at the airport I fly from (ESSB) there are areas near both ends of the runway (and one at the intersection in the middle) where there is space for 2-4 light aircraft (or, I suppose, one medium) to do their checks and run-up without blocking other traffic from taxiing past.

Since there are multiple schools and clubs operating as well as regular airline traffic and private flights these run-up areas are quite useful. Makes for efficient use of the runway.

With regards to the checks, I go by the checklist but some parts I do from memory, only reading the list afterwards to ensure that I didn't miss anything. "Do-Do-Do-Read" is a lot quicker than "Read-Do-Read-Do-Read-Do".

[Pitts2112]

Appropriately and not on someone else's dime.

In other words, I vary my attention to the checklist based on what's been going on with me and the airplane lately. If I just flew yesterday, I'm probably a little less detailed than if the airplane's been sitting in a damp hangar for two weeks. I also don't hog up the runway or taxiways doing checks and holding up someone else from using the facilities (same goes for full starting checklist sitting in front of the gas pumps). But I have sharper days and slower days to it's tough to say how long it takes on any particular day.

[Fuji Abound]

Why are we obsessed in the light piston world with checks at the hold.

Power checks may make sense for various reasons, but full and free? Could you really run into something without knowing during a 100 metre taxi to hold? Others come to mind.

[Pilot DAR]

My answer is, "just the right amount" of course! It obviously depends upon what I'm flying. If it's my own plane, which only I fly, things go a little quicker sometimes. If it's a type I've never flown before I will have a thorough read through the flight manual checklist evey flight. For helicopters and turbine types I occasionally fly, full use of the checklist every time....

I once took off with great haste in my plane, to fly a man overboard search over our local lake. Too much haste... when I landed two hours later, I cold hear a tinking sound as I taxied in. It was the aluminum Cessna tow bar bouncing off the ground as I taxied in with it still in place. How happy I was that it was a night search, so no one could see it attached when I flew over!

I recall with amusement, a friend of mine known for very brief preflight checks. The staff at the airport where he kept is light twin, amused themselves by timing him from door closed to wheels off the ground. The plane did usually park within 100 feet of the button of the grass runway, so taxiing was short anyway.

It was reported to me with amusement one day, that he had just broken his own record, in being airborne within 28 seconds of closing the cabin door (with engines not yet running!).

To everything, there is a balance of too little, and too much...

[blueandwhite]

I try to do my checks quickly - but have noticed that when a bit out of practice I can miss items - so I slow down.

Usually I can do my checks without holding anyone else up, but saftey first if I need the time I take it.

It is quite common at my local field for someone to take off from the intersection if they can fit in, I've never seen someone give offence that I know of.

Also it is not uncommon for people to call out "back tracking for departure in turn" and 3 or 4 aircraft can expidite departure by backtracking together. The following aircraft just taxi onto the peri track at the end of the runway. I've seen twin turbo probs fitting in with microlights doing this.

Everyone calls what they are doing.

I use the full runway even in a quite high performance plane capable of using less than a quater of the runway. Its my choice, I don't think people who depart from the intersection are taking an unreasonable risk.

Finally I hope this isn't a thread highjack, it's all meant to be about expaditing departure.

[FlyingStone]

I have nothing against thorough checks at the holding point, especially on training flights - you can't learn to do a ground check otherwise than doing it :) Warming up oil at -10°C OAT holding short of the runway instead on the apron (or even better, with preheat) which I witnessed the other day, is entirely different story :ugh:

[IO540]

Depends on which checks :)

I do a thorough preflight before driving off, extra thorough (and checking for tampering) if the aircraft was left outdoors the night before (which happens very very rarely). This takes about 10 mins.

At the holding point, there are the higher-power (2000rpm) mag checks, etc, but these take only about 1 minute.

It takes me 8-10 mins from start of taxi to getting airborne, with the 8 mins possible if the wx is very warm. But it can't be done in much less time due to needing the oil temp in the green (90F) before doing the 2000rpm checks.

If somebody just starts up (in a piston) and flies straight off with a cold engine, they are IMHO nuts. I see renters do all kinds of stunts (not least because they are getting billed brakes-off to brakes-on) but I would not do it in my own plane.

[Genghis the Engineer]

How long is a piece of string.

A simple aeroplane that I know well and have good recency in, potentially under a minute, possibly whilst taxiing. I tend not to do things on the ground from memory, because I don't need to, unless it's open cockpit in which case a checklist is a nuisance.

Something fairly complex that I don't know well, haven't flown before, or hasn't flown before (I've done a few first flights of new or rebuilt aeroplanes), I'm perfectly capable of taking 20+ minutes. But, I certainly won't do it blocking a taxiway, I'll tuck the aeroplane well out of everybody's way.

Cranfield is a particularly difficult place, because it's laid out with narrow taxiways towards the thresholds. Combine that with a lot of student pilots, lots of them flying aeroplanes that struggle to do a 360 in the width of those narrow taxiways, and you're pretty much certain to have this daft situation. Much trouble could be solved if runups for 21 on 18 before taxiing along A, or on Apron 5 before taxiing for 03. But this really is criticism of local layout and procedures - if you don't set up a training airfield to allow for variable and often longish runups, then you're going to get problems.

Certainly however, checking avionics and warming an engine up are best done somewhere else (either before or after brakes-off depending upon how, and whether, I'm paying for the aeroplane!).

G

[Pace]

A lot of the checks can be done before start and before the Pax arrive. In corporate flying we have most things ready including the start up clearances before the PAX enter.

The idea is to start taxi and takeoff within minutes in one flowing move.
Its much easier with a Co as he can check what is done and that nothing has been missed.

Single Pilot in a light aircraft its often easier to do things from memory and then visually check against the check list to confirm.

A Military Pilot used to instruct by getting his students to the line up point without a checklist only then would he let them use a checklist?

Has to be better than flying by numbers as the time you will forget an item will be the time you cannot use the checklist for one reason or other.

Pace

[Say again s l o w l y]

People should take as long as they need to, however anyone who takes 20 minutes to get an aircraft started and moving needs to have a word with themselves.

Never rush anything, but there's no need to take as much time as it takes to read war and peace.

[trex450]

I was flying recently in a rented cessna and paying on the hobbs meter. I don't hang around doing my checks as in a cessna single, with a bit of practice, you should be able to do most of the checks in the time it takes to warm up on a cold day. There is something incredibly frustrating about being stuck behind a badly positioned aircraft taking half the day to do its checks! This can amount to £20 -£30 in hire charges for no good reason. If you are going to be overly thourough in your checks please position to minimize frustration and inconvenience/cost to your fellow airfolk!

[Rod1]

In my own aircraft I can do the checks from memory and it is quite quick, but in cold weather it takes a bit of time for the oil to reach the magic 50deg C. In hot weather or for the second start of the day, it is possible to get airborne relatively quickly, provided I have done my pre-planning and have a pre programmed SD card to set the EFIS up for the days flying.

I like to be a good citizen and modify my SOP to help out if the airfield is particularly busy, so I will make a departure from an intersection etc, but with an aircraft which only requires 150m to get airborne and has a high RofC I am not taking much of a risk. In a more traditional machine I would be much more conservative, particularly if I did not know the maintenance history.

Rod1

[Fake Sealion]

I qualified as a military pilot some 30 years ago and all checks HAD to be learned and executed from memory. For 95% of us this involved sitting in an aircraft on the ground/in the hangar often with a fellow stude for hours on end until we cracked it :sad:

Checklists, whilst carried in our pockets, could only appear for SOME emergency drills.

Today, I use a checklist and take all the time I need :ok:

[sunday driver]

I fly less often than I would like.
Consequently I rent, and it's been a variety of club steeds.
So, taking care to keep out of the way ...
- prelim and external checks are nerdishly slow and pedantic. (On one occasion I spotted that both tank vents were blocked with paint from a respray a year earlier. Good job both filler cap seals were knacked)
- power checks and vital actions are read from the list, with thumb under each item.

Sunday Bloody Driver

[SNS3Guppy]

I'm a big believer that one should be blind-fold familiar with one's aircraft. I'm also a big believer that one should take as much time as one needs to accomplish each phase of the flight.

On fire flights, many times we tried to be within five minutes from dispatch to wheels in the air. Sometimes a little longer for loading and any ground delays. That means being completely preflighted and ready to go, first thing in the morning. Flight gear hanging on the side of the airplane and cockpit flows made getting airborne to be a quick process. Everything was done on the go.

Preflights shouldn't be rushed. Neither should before start, after start, taxi, or before takeoff checklists. Take the time you need. Being familar with the airplane and the procedures helps a lot. One can shorten the time required by doing flows in the cockpit and around the airplane. Doing things in a logical order, as a flow pattern, doing all the checks, then consulting a checklist to ensure everything was accomplished, makes things go faster.

I like checklists done out loud, and done as challenge and respose. I do the full checklist, out loud, even when flying alone.

I'm a big believer that if a checklist or flow is interrupted, it should be done again, started from the beginning. Too easy to pick up again at the wrong point and miss something. Start over.

Don't rush warm-up times. Don't be in such a big hurry that you miss the point of the checks that are being done. During the mag check, for example, don't just note an RPM drop; let it stabilize, note the value, and note the smoothness or roughness of the working mag. During a carb heat check, don't just look for a drop, but give it fifteen seconds or so; make sure that any ice that's present gets melted, check for roughness. When cycling the propeller, let it cycle, if the manufacturer approves or allows; don't just pull it back and slam it forward again. Do it several times; get warm oil in the propeller.

With time and experience, some things can be done on the fly, moving. Doing mag checks while holding the brakes is nonsensical, but sometimes in the case of a long, straight taxiway, the checks can be done while moving. When flying to rough fields, especially ones with loose chips, I'll often do a mag check in flight prior to landing. Care must be taken, but as it sometimes isn't advisable on a loose surface, doing checks in advance can be a benefit.

Take the time one needs; don't worry about how long it takes anyone else.

[jxc]

Checks nobody told me about checks you have to do :E

I was taught fly by your pants get in turn key and fly

[S-Works]

About 90 secs after pressing the start buttons.

[Pace]

SNS3Guppy

I fly in a MC invironment. We spend a long time checking the aircraft and all the other things required before the flight so that the aircraft is ready to go when the PAX arrive.

If for whatever reason we are really tight on time (PAX arrive late with Slot times) We may even on occasion have the one engine started)
Normally we run through the checks in the correct MC manner.

On occasion because I know my co pilot well and the aircraft very well I will run the checks from memory while getting the co to read them out and visually check the items on the move. We still confirm those items.

The point I am tying to make is that as a pilot there are occasions when you have to up the game and knowing not just the aircraft but the check items facilitates a smooth, prompt operation.

There are pilots who plod through the checklist as if they are reading a recipe book (add three teaspoons of sugar, stir three times etc)

One slow speed which can give the PAX the idea that you are such a bad pilot you need a guide to fly a bit like the German pilot in those magnificent men and their flying machines with a how to fly an aeroplane hand book. He was fine until the handbook blew out of his hands and stuck on the tail of the plane :E where was he then??? He had to climb out and retrieve it)

I still hold with the fact that there are occasions on the ground and in the air where knowing your checklist from memory with the checklist as backup is a far safer way than letting the aircraft run away from you and other events overtake you.
The times when you should be on page 4 of your checklist not page 2 ;)

Pace

[miroc]

After parking my car at the airport, I go to the tower to file the flightplan. Time of departure is filed about 40 min in the future.

After that, pulling out the bird from the hangar and the walkaround take 10-15 min. Then I prepare the charts, GPS, headsets, whatever... 5 min.

I load the baggage and passengers, start up the engine and do the flows like after-start, pre-taxi and radio contact. At this point I am working at least 20 min, probably around 30. For me it is the part of the big fun, why to make it shorter?

Now with the engine slowly warming up, I do the short taxi to the apron and brief the passengers while moving. Depending on number of passengers and their silly questions, it will take up to 5 min. The runway is closer and the pax seeing the seriousness of the situation, they usually stop talking :E

This is the right time to prepare the G1000 and do all the flows up to before takeoff. This is the serious one, 5-7 min with double checking everything.

Another short taxi to the holding point. The runup and before takeoff are done on the runway. It takes less than a minute, no problem with the traffic, this is a quiet place. Next minute we are airborne.

The 40 minutes are necessary for me, but this includes the overhead times like walking between the tower and hangar.

I do all the flows from memory. Skyhawk is simple and I can touch all the critical controls always in the same sequence so I will not miss one.

miroc

[gg190]

If somebody just starts up (in a piston) and flies straight off with a cold engine, they are IMHO nuts. I see renters do all kinds of stunts (not least because they are getting billed brakes-off to brakes-on) but I would not do it in my own plane.

Could not agree more, but this was something which had never been mentioned to me until only very recently. Having flown with about 7 or 8 different instructors none of them ever mentioned anything about letting the engine warm until my IMC instructor just made a comment about it in conversation. It was also mentioned during my ATPL course, but I don't remember anything at all about it in the PPL exams.

Problems with students and new PPLs doing checks at the hold can be caused by the way their instructor teaches them. When your fairly new to it all you tend to just copy what you have been told instead of thinking for yourself, to point you will try and get into the exact spot you were in when you where shown by the instructor.

It took a while before it dawned on me that there was no reason at all that I could not do the power checks on the apron instead of the hold, the way the aircraft get parked means there's nothing to get damaged, pre take-off checks (take no more than a few seconds) still done at the hold or on one of our runways the hold point is so far away from runway they can be done when rolling to line up.

[SNS3Guppy]

Having flown with about 7 or 8 different instructors none of them ever mentioned anything about letting the engine warm until my IMC instructor just made a comment about it in conversation.

Did your aircraft flight manual say nothing about oil or engine temperature in the green prior to takeoff?

I fly in a MC invironment. We spend a long time checking the aircraft and all the other things required before the flight so that the aircraft is ready to go when the PAX arrive.

What is an "MC invironment?"

It took a while before it dawned on me that there was no reason at all that I could not do the power checks on the apron instead of the hold, the way the aircraft get parked means there's nothing to get damaged, pre take-off checks (take no more than a few seconds) still done at the hold or on one of our runways the hold point is so far away from runway they can be done when rolling to line up.

I encourage students to do this just prior to entering the runway, or where practicable, on the runway itself.

Checks, particularly carburetor heat checks, should be done as closely as possible to takeoff. The check isn't just to verify an RPM drop, but to ensure that any carburetor ice is removed. Mag checks verify not only that the P lead is connected and the switch contacts good, but that the mags plugs haven't loaded up and we dont' ahve a bad magneto. It's very possible to have a good mag check on the ramp at the parking spot, and have the engine die during the takeoff from carb ice or fouling because of developments during the taxi time to the runway.

One slow speed which can give the PAX the idea that you are such a bad pilot you need a guide to fly a bit like the German pilot in those magnificent men and their flying machines with a how to fly an aeroplane hand book. He was fine until the handbook blew out of his hands and stuck on the tail of the plane where was he then??? He had to climb out and retrieve it)

About a year and a half ago we had an explosive depressurization in a Cessna 421 when the windscreen failed in flight. The top of the instrument panel, glareshield, and some of the interior disappeared out the window. The glareshield was outside the airplane, in front of the windscreen causing buffeting and vibration. The checklist was on top of the glareshield, and after the event, was nowhere to be found. It's probably in a farmers field somewhere, now.

I don't know what you're trying to say with the "one slow speed which can give..." bit, though.

On occasion because I know my co pilot well and the aircraft very well I will run the checks from memory while getting the co to read them out and visually check the items on the move. We still confirm those items.

The point I am tying to make is that as a pilot there are occasions when you have to up the game and knowing not just the aircraft but the check items facilitates a smooth, prompt operation.

That's the point of doing flow checks; do the flows, then read the checklist.

I still hold with the fact that there are occasions on the ground and in the air where knowing your checklist from memory with the checklist as backup is a far safer way than letting the aircraft run away from you and other events overtake you.
The times when you should be on page 4 of your checklist not page 2

If you have a four page checklist, then you have a problem. Get a better checklist.

Memory and stabilization items should always be accomplished without need for a checklist. Once the situation is stabilized, especially in an emergency, one should absolutely proceed with the checklist, and one should read everything, including the stabilization items already performed.

[gg190]

Checks, particularly carburetor heat checks, should be done as closely as possible to takeoff. The check isn't just to verify an RPM drop, but to ensure that any carburetor ice is removed. Mag checks verify not only that the P lead is connected and the switch contacts good, but that the mags plugs haven't loaded up and we dont' ahve a bad magneto. It's very possible to have a good mag check on the ramp at the parking spot, and have the engine die during the takeoff from carb ice or fouling because of developments during the taxi time to the runway.

Correct, which is why the the carb heat check is repeated as part of the pre-take-off checks. Surely the spark plug fouling would only be an issue a after a particularly protracted taxy or hold at idle power?

[SNS3Guppy]

That depends on the correctness of the idle mixture setting, which leads to the next obvious question: how many do post flight runs and checks, including idle mixture checks, as recommended by engine manufacturers?

How many do a thorough postflight? It should take as long as the preflight.

[W2k]

That depends on the correctness of the idle mixture setting, which leads to the next obvious question: how many do post flight runs and checks, including idle mixture checks, as recommended by engine manufacturers?

How many do a thorough postflight? It should take as long as the preflight.
I certainly don't, nor do I recall the matter ever being brought up by any of my instructors. Looking in the POH, there is nothing mentioned about post-flight checks or engine runs after landing, apart from the obvious stuff like securing the control wheel and retracting flaps. But I fly PA-28s and I guess it is a more involved procedure for complex aircraft?

[SNS3Guppy]

Both Lycoming and Continental have postflight procedures, including postflight runups and idle mixture checks.

Both the engine and airframe should be thoroughly postflighted, just as they are preflighted.

[Rod1]

“Postflight procedures” is not a term I had come across, but I assume is the same as shutdown procedures? Some engines require a minimum idle time before switching the mags off etc

Rod1

[Pace]

SNS3Guppy

What is an "MC invironment?"
Multi Crew rather than SP single pilot.

Slow speed!?

I have flown with many good pilots they all have one thing in common and that is the ability to pick up their game to suit the situation.

Of course any pilot has to fly within their capabilities safely some are what I call one speed and there is nothing wrong with that until the situation changes where one speed means getting behind the aircraft or the big picture.

The one speed? I knew a pilot who was meticulous in pre flight planning took an eternity running through his checks, had evrything planned to the finest detail. He then ran into a situation in IMC where all his pre planning went out of the window and he was left running on the hoof with no plans and a seriously deteriorating situation. He survived but seriously frightend gave up flying soon after.

I am sure you have had many situations where you know what I am getting at ?

Pace

[SNS3Guppy]

Rod,

Preflight means the inspection you do before the flight. Postflight means the inspection you do after the flight.

Engines have preflight runup procedures, and essentially the same procedures after the flight.

Checking that the magnetos are properly grounded is something done during the mag check, and this can be done prior to shut down; engine manufacturers also recommend a grounding check in which the switch is shut off. Otherwise, how do you know after shutdown that the mags are really grounded?

An idle mixture check is done to clear the engine and determine how close to ideal the idle mixture is set. This should be done at every shutdown.

Postflight inspections may discover all sorts of things. I've found everything from cracks to oil leaks to missing exhaust parts to bird strikes. Post flight inspections allow you to find maintenance discrepancies and get them reported so that they're written up and fixed (hopefully) before the next flight.

Engine manufacturers recommend post-flight engine runs, mag checks, idle mixture checks, and a "dead mag" check for grounding of the magnetos.

The one speed? I knew a pilot who was meticulous in pre flight planning took an eternity running through his checks, had evrything planned to the finest detail. He then ran into a situation in IMC where all his pre planning went out of the window and he was left running on the hoof with no plans and a seriously deteriorating situation. He survived but seriously frightend gave up flying soon after.

Certainly things may happen under very unusual circumstances that mean one can't adhere to standard procedures. This doesn't happen often. Even in single pilot operations, one generally has time to stabilize the situation and then reference the checklist.

This month we lost a generator while operating into Kabul. The generator took out a second generator and our essential bus, which lost left seat instruments, and the cockpit went dark. It was very early morning, and dark, and we were just leaving a hold to fly an ILS. In fact, we were just turning to intercept the localizer. In a location where few alternates existed, and having been made to hold and given delaying vectors, we didn't have extra fuel to go somewhere and hold for a longer period while we worked it out. The essential bus failure has a stabilizing memory procedure, which we did. We then put one generator back on line, isolated the other and ran it isolated, and continued the approach to land. On the ground we ran the checklist.

Kabul has one runway, and a lot of aircraft wanting to use it. Given local factors, one doesn't necessarily want to go somewhere and hold any longer than one must. Also, given that we were already configured, our fuel burn at the lower altitude was high and fuel was going fast. Accordingly, as we hadn't lost anything that would prevent us from landing, and the three procedures would take a long time to work out, we stabilized, landed, and sorted it out on the ground.

We did reference checklists for the stabilizing items in flight, shot through the remaining checklists very quickly, then troubleshot later at our leisure. We'd have been unable to do all that and brief; we had the approach briefed and everything set up before we descended to the hold, and all descent and approach checklists had already been run. The only checklist remaining prior to landing was the landing checklist, which would be delayed until glideslope intercept.

The point is that preparation early can eliminate a lot of the rush and headache of changing conditions. Organization and prior planning can very often simplify the problem by having much of the distractions already squared away.

MC isn't something I'm familiar with Generally in crew airplanes, a multi crew is assumed; single pilot operations in crew aircraft are the rare exception, and one might refer to those as SP (but will generally just say "single pilot" to avoid confusion). I've never heard of anyone refer to standard operations as "MC." Interesting.

[Pace]

MC isn't something I'm familiar with Generally in crew airplanes, a multi crew is assumed; single pilot operations in crew aircraft are the rare exception, and one might refer to those as SP (but will generally just say "single pilot" to avoid confusion). I've never heard of anyone refer to standard operations as "MC." Interesting.

Citations the jets I fly are Multi Crew or SP single pilot hence the differentation as not all Citations are Multi Crew. Okay I was being lazy not writing out MULTI CREW and abreviated it to MC :E

Pace

[SNS3Guppy]

Gotcha. I thought perhaps it was an EU reference with which I'm not familiar.

Regarding taking the time to get ready in an airplane, many moons ago I learned something from my boss, in Kansas. We were a small operation, operating several nearly identical Cessna AgTrucks. We referred to them as "the orange one," "the yellow one," and "the blue one." Otherwise, they were the same, inside and out.

Lain, the owners son, usually flew the blue airplane. One day he took my airplane, the orange one. This particular day, as his father and I looked on (we always kept one pilot on the ground as a lookout during takeoffs and landings, in the event of an emergency), Lain took longer than usual before departing. I asked his father why he thought it was taking so long.

"He's getting to know that airplane." Clarence said. I questioned this; after all, Lain had thousands of hours in AgTrucks, particularly in each of these airplanes.

"Ah." said Clarence. "Lain usually flies the blue one. Today he's in the orange one. They all have a different personality, they all fly a little different."

At my stage in life and career, they all flew about the same, to me. But not to Lain. We used most of the performance envelope of the airplanes during a typical spray flight, usually close to the ground, and taking the airplane right to the buffet in the turns at each end of the field, often at 75' of less, was very common. Accordingly, one needed to be absolutely sure where the airplane would pay off, and exactly what it would, and wouldn't do. Even with thousands of hours in the airplanes, even that airplane, Lain was taking the extra time to get thoroughly familiar and ready for the flight, from doing a quick blindfold check to feeling out the controls.

I didn't fully appreciate the wisdom of what Clarence told me at the time. Today, I do.

A few years ago, I flew a brand new Air Tractor AT-802. It flew like a dream. After a couple of weeks in that airplane, I was sent to fill-in on a very used and abused airplane, which had suffered a hard life. It flew very differently. Not unsafe, but it was like flying an entirely different kind of aircraft. I couldn't get comfortable in it. There were a few cockpit differences, and I spent the better part of two days sitting in the cockpit waiting for a dispatch, going over and over the cockpit with my eyes shut until I was blindfold-ready. I spent hours going over the radios, the nav, the drop system, the controls, the cockpit canopy release, the emergency handle, and so forth. I spent extra time outside the airplane, inspecting it, looking it over, examining, tugging, pulling, tweaking. I inspected every nut and bolt I could find, and every rivet I could see.

The former airplane was easy; get in and go, and I did. The latter airplane required much more attention. I was slower to get in the air, took wider turns on the drop, was more cautious about shoe-horning it into a tight space, and left myself wider outs, and flew it more conservatively.

The time it takes to get ready for a flight, or to conduct a flight (or to handle an emergency in flight) really depends on the airman, the aircraft, the operation, and many other factors that make it an individual experience. I tend to take more time than others. Perhaps I'm thorough, or perhaps just slow. My solution is to start early. Take the time I need. I always keep in mind that there is no flight which must be made. I've flown numerous types of operations, some very pressing. The old saying, "what's the rush, where's the fire?" never applied; I was often going to a fire, but always recognized that I didn't create the emergency, and wasn't about to let the flight become one. If more time was needed to preflight, load, takeoff, divert around terrain, skirt weather, run checklists, handle and onboard situation, communicate, etc, I took it, without any sense of pressure or guilt. No flight must be made; take the time necessary to do what must be done (or don't go).

Certainly moments will arise when the plan must change. Particularly since the recent UPS 6 crash in Dubai, we've been fairly keen on our fire drills when doing training. Take off, get a fire warning, go on oxygen and establish communiations, and do the memory items. Then get immediate vectors back to land; no briefing, no long identification or set up; get back as quickly as possible while addressing the problem as best able. In our scenarios, it's pressing, always resulting in an evacuation after landing (in the sim). That's one of those occasions when one isn't overly concerned about much of the standardized procedure we'd normally do. However, even in those cases, we're executing the emergency evacuation checklist prior to leaving the cockpit (forgetting to shut down engines, for example could have very serious consequences when leaving the airplane in front of those big engines).

The best counsel I think I ever got in an airplane was this: in an emergency, sit on one's hands for a ten count, then do something. Take the time to think. Fast hands kill. I think that really applies to nearly every aspect of our flight, from the preflight planning to the preflight inspection, to the runup, takeoff procedures, all the way through to the shutdown and parking checklists.

Several years ago I was working a very active fire in a turbine Dromader. I ended up doing 18 flights to the fire that day. After each landing, one of the things we would do is lock the controls, as soon as we unlocked the tailwheel. This involved using a steel spring-loaded bar in the cockpit to physically lock the stick assembly. This was to prevent damage of the large control surfaces from wind or other aircraft, during ground maneuvering. Obviously this required removal of the control lock and a control check before every takeoff. Doing a control sweep was common, ingrained practice. I always had the checklists on a kneeboard, and used them religiously. All good and well, until one's been sweating like a pig under a hot greenhouse canopy all day, and is hungry, sore, tired, and there's no end in sight.

I got on the runway somewhere around load 12, locked the tailwheel, and pushed up the power. Normal procedure involved putting the stick forward as soon as the tail was ready to fly, sometimes using some flap to do it. As you've probably guessed, the stick wouldn't budge. I bumped the control lock free with my fist, and it snapped out of the way under spring tension. I continued the takeoff, silently whipping myself senseless with a mental cat-of-nine tails, and vowed to redouble my commitment to that checklist. Habits, flows, practices, and memorized procedures are great until they break down at a critical time during a hot, very uncomfortable workday, and things begin to get missed.

A little later in the day, I watched Bill, one of our other pilots, reject a takeoff. I queried him on the radio and he said "something didn't look right." I knew exactly what had happened: he got 3/4 of the way into his takeoff roll, tail in the air, before realizing that his controls were locked out. It could have been too late, if he'd waited any longer.

Not long after that I was in another state, at an airport primarily used by fire and ag airplanes. Someone who worked on the ramp there commented that the year previously, he'd seen a Dromader take off with the control lock engaged. He said the airplane made it a few hundred feet into the air before nosing over and diving into the ground, where it exploded. There before the grace go I, I thought; could have been me, could have been Bill. I'm fanatical about checklist usage, about flows, procedure, cockpit knowledge, and taking the time to check...yet I did it, too. What if I hadn't found it sooner? Was getting one more load to the fire quickly more important than taking extra time to check? Was I getting complacent, tired, hurried, or too comfortable to take the time necessary to save my life? Apparently so, and it could have been a colossal error. Thankfully, it was not.

I submit that single pilot or in a crew, if it's humanly possible to take the time, we should. The life we save might be our own.

A favorite question we always asked of jump students was how long they would have to open their reserve parachute if the main should fail. Nobody ever got the right answer, and it was very simple; the same answer applies in an airplane during an emergency. How long have we got to make it work out. The rest of our life.

Even if it's measured in minutes or seconds...

[Pace]

SNS3Guppy

In Europe we tend to refer to Mullti Crew as in an MCC course as opposed to Single Pilot but technically you are correct as a Crew is more than one :)

I take on fully what you are saying above and am in no way promoting being sloppy with checks.

As I said in my original post on this thread it was spurred by a complaint on another thread of a Pitts pilot pulling onto the runway and taking off in front of his aircraft back tracking onto remaining runway behind the numbers.
I can imagine the delays and frustration before that aircraft entered the runway that caused the Pitts pilot to line up on the numbers and go.

That got me thinking of a King Air Owner I fly with on occasion who is very methodical but slow with his checks often taking 20 minutes to complete.

I had been on an earlier flight to the south of France and he had flown the return with another co pilot.

They were running late as it was and delayed further by a Slot. His slow methodical checks meant that he missed that slot although being warned by ATC a number of times and was sent back to the parking lot with another Slot a further 1.5 hrs later.

As another poster here stated that in the military in the UK they are expected to learn the checks by memory and then have a checklist.

Obviously if you are renting an unfamiliar aircraft you will need to go through all the checks step by step not only so you dont miss something but also to familiarise yourself with the aircraft.

I can remember borrowing a TB20 which I had never flown although I had flown other TB20s I climbed into a cloudbase at 500 feet into IMC to be met by a strong chemical smell. The aircraft was fitted with TKS anti icing and the tiny matchstick switch was almost out of sight by my knee.

So for me its about doing everything you possibly can before the PAX arrive, knowing your aircraft so it fits like a glove! Knowing your checks but using the checklist if you are in a tight slot situation which is often the case at least here in Europe to confirm.

Obviously in an emergency other than the memory items it is straight to the emergency checklist lock stock and barrel

Pace

[SNS3Guppy]

I take on fully what you are saying above and am in no way promoting being sloppy with checks.

I understand what you're saying. Clients don't like to wait. I remember an influential banker we used to fly regularly who was known for climbing into the airplane and simply saying "go fast." That's what we did.

I worked for a Learjet operator who insisted that we be taxiing as soon as the engines were started, and that's actually a very common thing; usually the engines were being started as the clients were settling into their seats. Clearances already obtained, all necessary checklists up to that point performed, coffee and ice ready, newspapers laid out on the seats, clients expected a turnkey operation: show up and go. Fast.

I flew Piaggios for a thousand hours or so, and the same thing there. Not at all uncommon to leave the right engine running when dropping or picking up a passenger, circumstances depending. I flew ambulance in King Air's, Lears, and Senecas, and we did the same thing. Much of the time I had engines turning as the crew arrived to get into the airplane and we were moving as the door was closing. There was never a delay with patients at the airplane; everything was always ready. When I got a dispatch, the airplane was already preflighted, and during my drive to the hangar I briefed and filed over the phone. My preflights were often long, as was my preparation, but I did it at my leisure before a flight was necessary, always at the start of a shift, and as the day or night progressed. Even in those states, however, I did the full checklists and did them out loud, as a single pilot (it kept me honest in not skipping things, and it put the record of having done so on the cockpit voice recorder).

A lot of our operations in Afghanistan have tight slot times. The runways get used a lot, and to make it work for everyone, there are slot times for ramp space and airspace. At some locations they're very hard-line about it, too. One can be half-way through with unloading the airplane and be confronted with a ramp manager who will tell you point blank, "you have 20 minutes; at the end of those 20 minutes you're departing whether the airplane is off-loaded or not." Arriving late can be extraordinarily bad; imagine flying all the way there, only to have to take off and fly home with half of the load still on the airplane. Not good; one must be on time and work within the constraints that are given. Weather, traffic, and mechanical delays must be factored in.

As another poster here stated that in the military in the UK they are expected to learn the checks by memory and then have a checklist.

The military is very big on knowing the procedures, but it's really the same program at any airline, and any conventional training facility. Simuflite and Flight Safety do the same thing: flows, backed up by checklists. It's just good cockpit management, and whether one is on the ground or in flight, performing the appropriate flows enables one to keep focused on the airplane and the environment and stay alert, while still accomplishing everything that needs to be done, backed up by a checklist. It's the same practice that I teach a student in a light, single engine airplane. In normal use, the checklist is a confirmation tool, not a do-list. Only in abnormal and emergency operations does that switch around.

[Pace]

I understand what you're saying. Clients don't like to wait. I remember an influential banker we used to fly regularly who was known for climbing into the airplane and simply saying "go fast." That's what we did.

I worked for a Learjet operator who insisted that we be taxiing as soon as the engines were started, and that's actually a very common thing; usually the engines were being started as the clients were settling into their seats. Clearances already obtained, all necessary checklists up to that point performed, coffee and ice ready, newspapers laid out on the seats, clients expected a turnkey operation: show up and go. Fast.

I flew Piaggios for a thousand hours or so, and the same thing there. Not at all uncommon to leave the right engine running when dropping or picking up a passenger, circumstances depending. I flew ambulance in King Air's, Lears, and Senecas, and we did the same thing. Much of the time I had engines turning as the crew arrived to get into the airplane and we were moving as the door was closing. There was never a delay with patients at the airplane; everything was always ready. When I got a dispatch, the airplane was already preflighted, and during my drive to the hangar I briefed and filed over the phone. My preflights were often long, as was my preparation, but I did it at my leisure before a flight was necessary, always at the start of a shift, and as the day or night progressed. Even in those states, however, I did the full checklists and did them out loud, as a single pilot (it kept me honest in not skipping things, and it put the record of having done so on the cockpit voice recorder).


SNS3Guppy

The above that you have so well described and I am not so good at conveying is the reality for many of us. Guppy you should write a book ;)

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

A big part of the problem is ridiculously long flight school generated checklists. They are often filled with extraneous fluff and have no logical organization. Recently I was asked to do a flight Instructor course at a local flying school. I said yes on the condition that they used my checklists. My checklist had exactly half the number of items compared to the existing lists and all the checks are based on a counter clock wise flow starting at the fuel selector on the floor and working around the instrument panel ending at the engine controls. The checks are "do lists" (ie read the item and then do it, move to the next item read then do etc) only for when the aircraft is stopped on the ground (prestart, pretakeoff, shut down) the rest are "check lists" (ie you do all the checks as a flow not looking at the checklist and then when able check the list).

Unfortunately operational efficency is often ignored in flight training. The goal should be to safely ready the aircraft for the intended flight in the minimum time.

[Pace]

Big Pistons

Very valid point we actually made our own checklist in the order we wanted and with the items we wanted.

Most private jets have abbreviated checklists which do shorten the time.

Yes customising to suit your own needs and flow patterns can also work in light GA pistons too.

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

I recently saw a checklist for a flying schools' Piper Seneca. It was a do list for everything and had you complete 147 items from prestart to shutdown :rolleyes:

The line up check had 11 items, including this gem

"Wheel Brakes............... Release" :ugh:

[SNS3Guppy]

I prefer to make my own checklists, too. So long as everything is covered, it's more than good enough.

Proper formatting and font can make a checklist much easier and much less distracting to use, which is a big plus, especially when operating single pilot.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Some replies mention "clients" , which puzzles me a bit. Aren't we supposed to discuss private flying here? How can there be a client in private flying?

[Maoraigh1]

All US C150, C152, C172, and PA28 checklists that I have encountered are much shorter than the UK rental lists for the same aircraft.

[Pace]

Jan

Sorry but we are crossing the line a bit ;) As some of us are ATP corporate as well as Private GA enthusiasts.

But also dont forget some lucky few may be private PPL IR jet owners too?
Any rich B out there???

Nevertheless the principles of one can cross to the other???

Apart of course the paying clients bit.

Pace

[Jim59]

The last item on my glider pre take-off checklist (9 items) is the best one - eventualities...

[Jan Olieslagers]

Pace, I was aware of the subtle difference between "private flying" and "recreational flying". Very often, there will be little difference. In the present discussion the difference is relevant, however: as a recreational pilot, I positively refuse to count the time for flight preparation, checklists included. The whole flying experience is sufficiently expensive that I won't have any bit of it shaded by time pressure.

When the bill is paid by someone else, that person will wish to have a word to say on how the money is spent - whoever has the money defines the rules of the game, in all games.

Of course we should take care not to obstruct runways, taxiways &C but that is a point of good airmanship & polite manners, nothing to do with the time taken.

[IO540]

It is however relevant in the UK, where billing is usually Wet and brakes-off to brakes-on, so after the brakes are released and one starts taxiing along, people rush like crazy to get in the air.

To an owner, the ground time is irrelevant, because he logs purely airborne time for maintenance purposes, and the fuel flow on the ground is negligible.

[Pace]

Jan

But surely as a private leaisure pilot who has to pay his own hard earned money to fly you will want to spend as much of that hour or so up in the air?

You will not want to spend it stuck behind 3 training aircraft in the hold as they go through every check in slow motion.
You will not want to be taxiing along miles of taxiways?

I am sure you will want to get the whole process from start to takeoff completed as quickly and efficiently as possible even down to your own checks.

Pace

[Jan Olieslagers]

I certainly do not like to waste my money - as you said it is hard enough to earn - but neither do I want to waste the quality of my flying. So neither will I hurry through my own preparation nor will I allow myself to get nervous over another pilot taking her/his time to do things properly - whatever that may mean to her/him. Take-off carries risk and stress enough that I do not want to do it while recovering my breath from hurriedly pulling the plane out of the hangar, neither while recovering my calm after wishing all devils from hell on a fellow pilot.
I surely have occasionally taxied past a plane that left the apron before me, only to spend a long time in the field on whatever activity I saw no (more) need for, to take off first. Operating from a grass strip with no marked taxiways this is never impossible.
Looking back, I was taught to check as much as possible before even starting the taxi. Because if any check goes wrong it is "back to the apron" anyway. Without any document at hand I only recall the engine run-up just before take-off, and checking the turn-coordinator when turning in the taxi run. And a second verification of flaps and trims during the taxi.
Most of all, I was taught to take whatever time it takes. No more of course, but no less either. All praise to my instructors! And no, they were not professionally paid, not by a long way. At times I had to insist before they'ld accept any money at all.

[Pace]

Jan

Cannot argue with what you say ;) I too dream of a private strip with something like a cub or Husky or even a VLA I can drag out of the hanger for a stroll around the skies early summer mornings.

We are all after different things the picture of the private strip is miles away from the intensity of hard IFR, slot times and pressure that SNS3Guppy so well described in certain corporate jet ops.

Pace

[Jan Olieslagers]

Mind you I never spoke of a private strip. Was referring to a certain Belgian aerodrome which has become the venue for my occasional aerial exercises.

And I really believed my adversity to the word "hanger" (or at least to its inappropriate use) had become legendary. Sigh. I'll not set up another rant.

[SNS3Guppy]

Some replies mention "clients" , which puzzles me a bit. Aren't we supposed to discuss private flying here? How can there be a client in private flying?

Fine. Replace "clients" with "passengers," if it makes you feel better. Perhaps you would be better served putting words in others mouths then, rather than letting them speak for themselves.

Aviation does not exist in a vacuum. General aviation is not merely private pilots flying weekend missions to get a hamburger (or fish and chips, as one might). General aviation encompasses many other aspects of flying, from crop dusting to banner towing to corporate, fractional, charter, photography, and other flying. Is operating a Cessna 172 from A to B with a "client" passenger any different than flying the same route using the same airplane with a private pilot at the stick and aunt Bessie in back? Not really.

What I do find very interesting in the private pilot world, sometimes, is the assumption that if one flies big airplanes, of flies corporate, or flies for a living, one couldn't possibly understand or have any part in private flying or general aviation as the private pilot sees it. Ironically, there's often a sense that the experienced pilot has no place. More ironic is that the experienced pilot may have ten thousand hours of experience in general aviation, may be an active participant and instructor, may own his own light airplane, may be an aircraft mechanic or engineer, and may have something to say based on a lifetime of experience in general aviation, but isn't welcome.

I've seen it happen right here, time and time again. You said "clients," that's not part of our world, and doesn't apply. You're discussing a big airplane, it doesn't apply (never mind that the "big airplane" is single engine, general aviation, tailwheel, and as close to barnstorming as one can get any more). Those procedures don't apply to us, yada, yada.

The private pilot is an interesting animal. Hungry for information, the private pilot in it's student form is the rarest of students in the world of learning. The student pilot really wants to learn, and is paying through the nose to do it. The student pilot hungers to read everything, learn everything, know everything, hear about it all. A change takes place, like an instar or life form of an insect, when the student becomes a private pilot. Many, the great challenge of learning to fly being perceived over, shortly quit thereafter. No longer able to justify the money or time, they fade away. Others, however, continue, taking advantage of their new-found privileges and skills. Some go on to buy airplanes, even, or join with a club.

Somewhere in there, during this metaphorical transformation (for metaphysical tranformation seldom takes place...don't see too many private pilots sprout wings form their back), the private pilot begins to know everything. I see that more in the world of private pilots than in the circles of commercial pilots or ATP's. I don't see it so much in the lower rungs of commercial pilots, the ones doing their first few years of flying (instructors, cargo, banners, etc), and I don't see it so much in the advanced years, either. By and large, of any form, it's nearly always the private pilots who can't be told anything, and have no desire to learn. It's also, ironically, the private pilots who often seem to feel that they've experienced it all. I'm reminded very much of the teenager, of whom is said "teenagers, now is the time to leave home and pay your own way, while you still know everything."

Lest you think I'm pounding private pilots or hate them, I'm not. I've created many of them as an instructor and teacher, and whereas I once held nothing more than a private pilot certificate, and still hold private privileges concurrent with my ATP, I'm one, too.

Another trait I often see is the locality trait. This isn't endemic to private pilots per se, but it's found in most places by people who don't get out much. It's the "you couldn't possibly understand us" trait, the one that says "things are different here. You're not from here, you wouldn't understand." It does somewhat tend to dismiss those who travel the world and have been there, and have done that, and still do that regularly. It's the same trait that laughs at and ridicules experience. I see it here a LOT.

I know many professional pilots who don't want anything to do with aviation when they're done getting paid to fly. They get off their shift, off their flight, off their line, and they're done. They want a different world. That's hard for the aviation enthusiast to understand, sometimes. After all, the private pilot works very hard to get the little bit of flying that he or she does. How could anyone who worked so hard to be where they are in a flying career be so dismissive, as the airline pilot who goes home to golf and doesn't think about an airplane again until it's his turn to go fly? How could he possibly enjoy his work, if he doesn't want any part of it?

I know many professional pilots like that, and while I can share the private pilot sentiment of not fully understanding them, I do understand the mentality of those who want to go home and do something else. After all, if one has flown all one's life, and does it eighty to a hundred twenty hours a month or more (figuring three to four hours involvement for every hour of flying, at a minimum, often with fourteen to eighteen hour duty days on the job), it's no wonder that they want a break.

Conversely, I know many professional pilots who stay very involved in general aviation during their careers, including during their off times. Many of us will jump at the chance to go flying any time. You'll find many of them at the local FBO or flyin club, hanging out, talking flying, living flying, giving instruction, renting, building, teaching, and participating.

The corporate airplane with it's "client" passengers often lands at the same airfields that you do in your Cessna 172 or Cirrus. The corporate or ag or banner airplane uses the same airspace, the same flight rules, the same air traffic control, and makes the same radio calls. The working airplane buys fuel from the same source, uses the same radio. Reads the same charts. Files the same flight plans.

Some private pilots fly single engine Cessnas. Others fly turboprop Pipers. Others fly their own King Air, Citation, or Lear. Some private pilots have their own SNJ or Travel Air. Others a Corsair. Some a pitts. Some land on beaches and mud flats in their Cub, while others use their Bonanza for personal transportation and the occasional pleasure flight. Some private pilots carry clients to look at their building project from the air, or to bring their client to the office from a neighboring city to make a book deal. Some private pilot businessmen make good use of their personal airplane to serve their clients, ranging from the serviceman who flies to client locations to work on their equipment, to the salesman who visits clients in the field, or brings clients to see a product. Even the salesman who's clients are the pilots to whom he is trying to sell the airplane.

Let's not dismiss others who fly, especially if they have something to offer, because you don't prefer the semantics in their choice of words. You might just miss the greater message.

[CanAmdelta1]

I have the checklist completed and my taxi clearance prior to leaving the main terminal apron. When I begin taxi to the active runway holding bay, I swing my instruments: compass, turn and bank, heading ind. etc.

When I arrive at the active r/w holding bay all that is left for me is a visual check for traffic, carb heat check for icing, landing light on, xponder to alt., then I contact tower and advise ABCD ready for immediate T/O r/w ##, get my T/O clearance and roll on the active and initiate warp drive.

It takes about 60 seconds to do the above and enter the r/w if there is no traffic on final.

If I am going to need a delay on the r/w, I tell the tower I am ready for take with a short delay requested, before I taxi on the active r/w. This is usually so I may position for a full r/w, static run up take off.

The advantage at this facility is a large apron for checks so that holding bay checks are minimal plus I am not flying the complex Confederation Starship Enterprise.....

[Fuji Abound]

Fine. Replace "clients" with "passengers," if it makes you feel better. Perhaps you would be better served putting words in others mouths then, rather than letting them speak for themselves.


No, not fine at all.

Passengers and clients make very different demands. You need to understand how and why their demands are different and how this can impact on the management of the flight. I worry that you dont.

Jan makes a fair point, since few on here fly with "clients" but many with passengers; you should not replace one with the other.

Pace makes some very good observations as to why the demands of clients are often quite different from passengers and why the CAA and others make an important distinction in licensing between providing a service for remuneration and not.

[madlandrover]

ABCD ready for immediate T/O

I'm sure this is an international variation, but over here this is one of my major bugbears. Any report of being ready for an action (whether it's ready for departure (over here the phrase "take off" isn't used until a take off clearance or similar has been issued, to avoid any confusion), reporting ready for taxi after receiving a start clearance, etc) implies being ready to carry out the action. Not ready to start thinking about carrying out the action. ATC may occasionally ask if holding traffic can accept an immediate take off clearance, but that is an ATC initiated request to allow them to plan for minimum runway occupation with traffic on or nearing the final approach.

Yes, as an FI teaching ab-initio students the first couple of takeoffs they do themselves may involve up to 10s stationary on the runway, but anything more than that (in a simple SEP, or MEP!) is poor training practice. With experience that can be reduced down to even less, ideally just enough to confirm correct runway and then go. Most of us brief students that as soon as the hold is crossed we have the intention to get airborne, so why delay?? "Ready for immediate takeoff" just sounds a bit arrogant over here - ie "I'm in a hurry, I want to go NOW".

2 countries, separated by a common language :cool:

[Jan Olieslagers]

"Ready for immediate takeoff" just sounds a bit arrogant over here - ie "I'm in a hurry, I want to go NOW".

Think I can second that. The few times I heard mention of an "immediate take-off", (or was it even a "rolling take-off"?) it was when listening curiously - and slightly outside legal - to one major airport round here, and it was TOWER inquiring "bluefish niner four zulu, are you ready for an immediate?" when they saw occasion. Never heard the "immediate" initiated by a pilot.

I do not fly at controlled a/d's myself, but was always taught we should consider controllers as people working for us - and in other contexts I was taught to be polite versus people working for me, especially if they have any degree of authority.

Slightly off-topic: hearing how the big people do it, and taking their example where applicable, has been a great inspiration to my R/T.

[CanAmdelta1]

Madlandrover and Jan,

I do see you point on my "immediate take off." This is used (my intentions) to let the ATC know I can go whenever they have an opening. In other words I am not going to hesitate on the r/w and gum up their timing etc.
That's why I mentioned in the same post "ready for takeoff with a slight delay requested." For the same consideration for their timing.

I assure you no arrogance intended. Canada is a lovely place to fly, and I constantly try not to be a bugger in their airspace or on the radio.
This airport has 10+ training aircraft and also commercial freight in and out plus private so it gets busy sometimes.

Thanks for that point of view, as you mention common language 2 countries.

Regards

[SNS3Guppy]

No, not fine at all.

Tough.

Clients are passengers.

Then again, acting professionally means treating fuelers, personnel on the line, behind the counter, briefers, and anyone else with whom one works during a flight operation, as a client.

Yes, passengers are clients, whether you're getting paid for the flight or not.

[Fuji Abound]

Clients are passengers.


No.

"Clients" originally referred to the relationship between a lawyer and the person he represents. It is commonly used these days where the relationship is very different, often I suspect to imply an unnecessary sense of self importance. Everyone understands being a passenger of the rail company, or airline, or cruise ship - if I say I had enjoyed my experience as a passenger without mentioning "on what" everyone would expect me to have been involved with some form of transport, whereas if I said I enjoyed my experience as a client, they would probably think I had been to see my accountant or lawyer.

Anyway, back to the point.

The relationship between a pilot and his pax can be very different. On this forum we all understand flying with friends. Sometimes they expect us to operate like a mini airliner and cant understand why we might want to stay on the ground when the weather is on the deck, but with luck we can manage these expectations if, for any other reason, they cant fire us!

Passengers, at least in the sense of those who fly on commercial flights, are different again. They have no interaction with the crew and therefore no influence on the conduct of the flight. The pilots' employers may bring other pressures on the crew, but again these are different and managed differently. In fact post 9/11 operators have successfully created a sterile enviroment between flying crew and their passengers.

Finally, there is the relationship between a pilot who is flying his employer which I think is what Pace was discussing. We have already heard of those clients who expect to taxi within minutes of their arriving in the cabin. Where the pax in the back are paying for the aircraft, paying the crew, have immediate access to the crew, and "think they are calling the tune" the relationship is different again. Moreover, in this enviroment, the passenger(s) expect to fly to their time, after all they are paying a great deal of money to do so and it is probably their expereince that this is exactly what they get.

A private pilot on this forum rarely, if ever, has to deal with the demands that can be placed on a commercial crew interacting directly with their emloyer and aircraft owner. Moreover rightly, or wrongly, our regulatory authority demands commercial crew display a different skill set from private pilots.

For all of these reasons clients are not passengers either in sense or substance. Every pilot might have pax or passengers with him, but managing the demands and expectations of those passengers can be very different and it would serve us well to treat each as unique.

That does not mean it isnt an interesting subject for debate, but it does mean you make a fatal error in thinking each is the same as laudable as you might like to treat every passenger with equal "contempt"!

[SNS3Guppy]

No.

"Clients" originally referred to the relationship between a lawyer and the person he represents. It is commonly used these days where the relationship is very different, often I suspect to imply an unnecessary sense of self importance.


Really? Which part of depending on another for safety and protection is an "unnecessary sense of self-importance."

client - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/client)
cli·ent audio (klnt) KEY

NOUN:

1. The party for which professional services are rendered, as by an attorney.
2. A customer or patron: clients of the hotel.
3. A person using the services of a social services agency.
4. One that depends on the protection of another.
5. A client state.
6. Computer Science A computer or program that can download files for manipulation, run applications, or request application-based services from a file server.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Latin clins, client-, dependent, follower; see klei- in Indo-European roots



A customer need not pay to be a customer.

Perhaps your passengers do not depend on you for safety, or to protect them from harm. In general, however, the definition of pilot in command is the person to whom is entrusted the safe outcome of the flight. The duty of the pilot in command is to protect the aircraft and passengers from harm by operating professionally, safely, and within the constriction of the guidelines and regulations that govern the flight.

Most assuredly a passenger is a client.

Treating every passenger as a client, with respect, while protecting their safety is not an act of contempt, but a standard act of airmanship. A passenger, as your customer, should expect no less.

Customer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer)
A customer (also known as a client, buyer, or purchaser) is usually used to refer to a current or potential buyer or user of the products of an individual or organization, called the supplier, seller, or vendor. This is typically through purchasing or renting goods or services. However, in certain contexts, the term customer also includes by extension any entity that uses or experiences the services of another. A customer may also be a viewer of the product or service that is being sold despite deciding not to buy them. The general distinction between a customer and a client is that a customer purchases products whereas a client purchases services.

Any passenger of mine is my client.

[IO540]

Oh dear, one loses the will to live...

Regarding "ready for immediate takeoff", this should not be used because the only time a pilot is allowed to use the word "takeoff" is in reply to his takeoff clearance.

This was one of the results, I think, of the famous Tenerife 2-airliner runway collision in the 1970s.

The purpose is to prevent some unrelated and hot under the collar pilot hearing the lone word "takeoff" (e.g. as a result of a garbled transmission) and putting 2 and 2 together to get 5 and thinking it was his takeoff clearance, and entering the runway...

However, saying "Nxxxx ready for immediate" (without speaking the word "takeoff") is fine and is widely used commercially too. It is appropriate in certain situations; examples:

(1) There is an aircraft on final but still miles away, the ATCO doesn't know you** and this lets him know that you are ready to get off quick

(2) You have two runway entrances, with a long queue for the furthest one, with a student (or a low currency pilot) bogged down at the head of the queue, and you are all ready to go right and happen to be next to the other entrance, and there is plenty of runway available to depart from there

(3) The ATCO is obviously incompetent (go to Valencia, among many examples in southern Europe) and this is a way hopefully doing something about the situation. How well it works probably depends on who else in on duty; in Spain it may have the opposite effect, and Ryanair/Easyjet tend to use it to let off steam :)

**This is never spoken overtly but ATC do give priority to pilots who they know are not going to give them trouble. For example somebody who is obviously having trouble with the radio and other stuff is unlikely to be given a "land after". The ATC at a given airfield also know which of the locals are OK to be asked to orbit on base leg, etc.

[Fuji Abound]

I think you miss the point.

By that definition passengers in your car are clients, your wife sitting next to you is a client. You are ulitmately responsible for their safety and could just as easily kill them through your neglect. By all means tell your wife she is a client next time you take her for a ride down town or better still if she spots you with your girlfriend you can tell her "never mind I was only with a client giving her a ride".

I dont diminsih the importance of a driver or pilot at all. It is not necessary to borrow words that originally had another meaning to make their relationship appear more important. People in aircraft are passengers or pax if you prefer.

A few years ago many of the trains in the UK started refering to their passengers as clients - "we would like to welcome our clients on board" and all that rubbish - thank goodness I see many have gone back to calling them what they are - passengers. I can just imagine being picked up by a London black cab driven by a salt of the earth East Ender asking him to refer to me as a client - he would tell me I was haven a laf, your a "fare mate" and "no two ways about it, Gov!".

Mind you I gather the oldest profession refers to their customers as "clients" these days so what do I know. I suppose they have a duty of care as well these days. ;)

Fact is I dont really mind what you call them. More interesting is the suggestion that every passenger or client (as you prefer) is the same.

My comment with regards "contempt" may have been a little subtle and tongue in cheek - sorry.

The inference was if you treat every passenger with the same "contempt" it matters not whether they are your boss, your mother-in-law, your wife or girl friend you have equal "contempt" for the lot of them when they "demand" you do something with which you are uncomfortable.

So back to the serious point in hand I was simply pointing out that your original post was wrong because in reality their is a huge temptation to "give in" to certain pressures - to ignore that would be to deny the human condition. The pressures on an airline pilot, a private pilot and a commercial pilot flying his "clients" are different and it is as well to recognise the differences. That was the reason I felt compelled to respond to your earlier post.

Even if you think you treat them all the same subtely you dont. As we have heard the way checks are carried out for a "client" are different almost always from the way a private pilot performs his checks. That doesnt mean one is any more or less safe but it does mean their are different reasons why things could go wrong.

I guess you would know that from when your client is the Government and you are ducking small arms fire for flag and country - a different client, different pressures and different rules.

[SNS3Guppy]

So back to the serious point in hand I was simply pointing out that your original post was wrong because in reality their is a huge temptation to "give in" to certain pressures - to ignore that would be to deny the human condition.

To ignore that would be professional, and is a necessity if one intends to fly aircraft.

One had better not be giving in to "certain pressures." If one feels pressured, one had best stay on the ground.

One of the most important abilities a pilot must have is that which enables him to say "no."

Even if you think you treat them all the same subtely you dont.

I most certainly do. You should too, regardless of what you fly, and whether you get paid to do it.

I guess you would know that from when your client is the Government and you are ducking small arms fire for flag and country - a different client, different pressures and different rules.

The biggest hazard in flight was UAV's actually, and the biggest hazard between flights was mortar and rocket fire.

Different rules and regulations, yes, but personnel on board were treated no differently, and with no less courtesy, and there was no less effort at reading checklists out loud and executing them in full.

If someone pressures me, or a circumstance arises which brings to bear "pressure," it sends up a big red flag which says "perhaps we ought not do this right now." There is no flight which must be made, and if one feels pressured to make it, it's nearly certainly a warning that one shouldn't go.

[Fuji Abound]

Well I am pleased to say now we understand each other we seem pleasantly agreed.

What you would or wouldnt do is one thing (and I am sure you you wouldnt) but you recognise that others might. I think you also recognise that different flights and a different relationship with the client aka passenger brings with it different pressures some easier and some less easy with which to cope.

As to treating people with courtesy and professionalism that was never in doubt.

[mikehallam]

The other thing I was taught 40 years ago, was to do the hand movements too so real action followed the words & use a knee pad list.

Thus even though I fly a simple a/c , "U/c down & locked" means moving an imaginary lever, ditto "brakes off".
And finger on the several gauges helps one not just say the words, brain out of gear !

mike.

[CanAmdelta1]

IO540, Jan, Madlandrover

I shall substitute the word departure in order to assure compliance, dispel arrogance and promote the spirit of safety management.:ok:

Now if we can only decide on the position and hold, taxi into position and hold, line up and wait phraseology.......just kidding..........I'll get my hat and coat and show myself to the door.;)

[Pace]

So back to the serious point in hand I was simply pointing out that your original post was wrong because in reality their is a huge temptation to "give in" to certain pressures - to ignore that would be to deny the human condition. The pressures on an airline pilot, a private pilot and a commercial pilot flying his "clients" are different and it is as well to recognise the differences. That was the reason I felt compelled to respond to your earlier post.

Fuji

Just to get one thing clear there is nothing wrong with pressure in itself.
That is what challenges us to perform to our best, to achieve our highest standards.

Too much pressure leads to overload where our performance and sharpness of mind and clear thinking decline.
To be pressurised into doing something we are not up to doing means that if we do it there is a good chance that will lead to overload.

I came into flying from Car racing the pressure was good as it got the adrenaline pumped up a bit, hightened the senses and reactions to perform. be careful using the word pressure as without it we would be slow motion zombies :E

Most of my most memorable flights have been pressured but where I have met the challenge and performed to my best.
Pressure is not the killer its the overload it can lead to.
If you are pressured (forced) to do something you are not up to or uncomfortable about you may perform and please yourself with your achievemnt but more likely you will get overloaded and fail with disasterous consequences.

Saying I love " Unless you push the limits you will never find what lies beyond?"

Some of us thrive under pressure, a doctor friend works in a very busy A and E department he loves the pressure the adrenaline buzz and wouldnt want anything else.
Others dont thrive under pressure we are all different.

Pace

[peregrineh]

I am probably in the wrong place but if some kind could could help! I have just started flying Pitts S-2B - does anybody know where I can get a checklist from? Thank very much

[madlandrover]

CanAmdelta1: where would the fun be if we all agreed straight away ;)??

[CanAmdelta1]

Madlandrover

quote:
CanAmdelta1: where would the fun be if we all agreed straight away http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif??

Exactly mate, I agree.:ok: A little ropa dope here, a little bob and weave there and we all are more well informed.......oh and thicker skinned:)

regards

[blueandwhite]

I am probably in the wrong place but if some kind could could help! I have just started flying Pitts S-2B - does anybody know where I can get a checklist from? Thank very much


I'm pretty sure from the thread that started this one that Pitts drivers don't use them :E or radios come to that :E

[Fuji Abound]

http://www.sunriseaviation.com/checklists/Pitts%20S-2B%20Checklist.pdf

;)

Appreciate your sense of humour.

[peregrineh]

Excellent tx vm!

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

Another interesting discussion.

Day to day I am not convinced that pressure should have any place in the cockpit (well unless it involves small arms fire). I cant think why it should occur and if it does I would have thought the root cause of those problems needs establishing.

I can well imagine these days there are greater pressures before ever reaching the cockpit - getting to the airport can be bad enough and doubtless dealing with "clients" can send the blood pressure into territory which would cause your AME to raise an eyebrow.

I guess the secret is compartmentalise the pressure rather than taking it into the cockpit which might impair clarity of thought.

Yes, I guess some of us work better under pressure, even realish it. Whether or not it is a good thing long term I wonder. I read Biology at University - everything tells me that the human body is not well adapted to constant exposure to pressure; eventually I suspect most will suffer in one way or another.

I guess the other risk is do any of us know how much pressure we can cope with. The problem with piling it on is that if and when the breakdown comes it will be unexpected and devistating.

A friends son works for one of the top five firms of accountants. He is regularly working 15+ hour days including at week ends. He thought he was impressing the partners. At his last review they told him he was working too long hours. If he really needed to do those hours then either he wasnt up to the job or they had got it badly wrong in terms of the pressure they had brought to that young man. I applaud them.

We have all seen it in the cockpit. Load the pressure and eventually most every pilot eventually falls to pieces - it is just a question of how long. I have seen it cleverly done in the sym. The "instructor" piles on one failure after another; in the debrief the crew are horrified they didnt notice the engine fire alarm, but they really didnt, their attention was else where and the pressure sufficient to distract them.

[SNS3Guppy]

Day to day I am not convinced that pressure should have any place in the cockpit (well unless it involves small arms fire). I cant think why it should occur and if it does I would have thought the root cause of those problems needs establishing.

Tension as a function of one's environment is one thing; allowing one's decisions to be influenced by pressure is entirely another.

One will certainly experience in the cockpit; this can come from a routine night landing or an abnormal procedure. How well one functions in that environment is largely dependent on how well one can operate under that tension. If that tension is allowed to pressure one to take an action one wouldn't take without that influence, then one is acting inappropriately.

An onboard fire, for example, is bound to create some degree of tension. Tension tends to raise one's awareness level and one tends to perform at a higher level, especially if one uses that tension to one's advantage. That's very different from giving in to pressure. Pressure by passengers, for example, to press on to the destination, despite deteriorating weather, is something that must be disregarded. One must act and make decisions exactly the same as one would do without that influence or pressure.

One of the best safety briefings I ever had was three words long, given by a Liason Officer Major. He stood and said simply "Gentlemen, stay tense." I didn't appreciate his wisdom for some time, but came to see the value in his counsel. Complacency hurts, and even kills. A little tension is a good thing.

[Pace]

SNS3Guppy

Totally agree with you but threw this arguemnt into the pot for another reason.

As with my Doctor friend who relishes the intense and frenetic atmosphere of a busy A and E and thrives on the buzz of working under that pressure another Doctor would cave in and better suit a quiete country surgery where he can take time with his patients.
They are both Doctors!

The same with pilots some thrive under pressure running on adrenaline others dont.
Different horses for different courses ;)
I totally take your point that being pressurised into doing something or flying in conditions your not comfortable with is a totally different matter.

When I had just got my PPL I was accustomed to flying longer trips with a much more experienced pilot friend.
We were flying 2 other friends to France for the day. I was confident knowing my friend was with me on the trip.
The other two non pilots turned up and we readied the aircraft awaiting my experienced pilot friend.
He rang to tell me that he had crashed the car on the way to the airport and to do the trip on my own. My confidence crashed at the thought of doing such a long trip. Dont be silly he told me you are perfectly up to it. I was also pressurised by the thought of letting my friends down and being such a wimp.
I was pressurised but bit the bullet and went.

Best thing I had done ;) As from that point I did many long distance solo trips

Pace

[SNS3Guppy]

As with my Doctor friend who relishes the intense and frenetic atmosphere of a busy A and E and thrives on the buzz of working under that pressure another Doctor would cave in and better suit a quiete country surgery where he can take time with his patients.
They are both Doctors!

The same with pilots some thrive under pressure running on adrenaline others dont.
Different horses for different courses

Many different professions put people into situations that create or participate in very tense events. Aviation is certainly no different.

Adrenaline junkies and thrill seekers gravitate to certain sports or activities and seem to love the feeling it gives them, though I submit that such individuals are poorly suited to the cockpit. I've met quite a few of them, especially at the entry levels in aviation, and have even weeded a number of them out over the years. From time to time one will hear of so-and-so who put an airplane into a cliff face or a tree top while seeking thrills or doing something stupid. It happens more often than people think.

There's an old saying that "there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." I don't entirely agree with that, but it does make a good point. As pilots tend to gain more experience, and generally as pilots get older, pilots tend to eschew rash behavior and situations that unnecessarily create risk or danger.

Certainly we all face some need to be challenged. Whether it's a need to be doing something at times of boredom, or a need to move on to instrument training after doing the private in order to keep challenging ourselves, we all have some need to solve problems, test ourselves, expand. That's normal, and that's natural.

Where we see the real problem occur isn't dealing with natural tension in a given environment; we train for that part. It's why we do simulated engine failures and practice unusual attitudes. The real problem occurs when we enter into situations by giving in to pressure. Pressure to get there: getthereitis, as it's sometimes called. Pressure to perform ("look ma, no hands!" or "watch this!'). Pressure to go. Pressure to stretch fuel. Pressure in so many different ways, then we've entered a dangerous area.

I had an ambulance flight in a Learjet one night about ten years or so ago, in which we had a heart team on board to pick up a heart for a dying patient. Imagine the pressure: the patient who would receive the heart was waiting, and being prepped. The patient who had the heart was waiting and being prepped. If we hesitated, the heart would be wasted, and very likely the person expecting it would die. Conditions deteriorated at the destination. We knew it would have no hangar space, and the hear team could be a while; we had no deice capability at night at this rural location. As we pressed on, the temperature dropped and a thick fog formed. The only approach was an NDB procedure. Nearby choices weren't available. We knew that with changing conditions, we'd have significant frost on the airplane, on the critical learjet wing, when the heart team returned.

We notified the heart team that we were turning around, and we returned to our departure airport. I do not know what happened after that. We may have condemned the recipient to die, by preventing him or her from getting a heart. Conversely, we may have saved the heart for harvest the next morning, by ensuring that we weren't sitting on the ramp with the heart in an ice chest, unable to go anywhere; we may have saved a life. I don't care to know, and I don't care, because the pressure to make that decision based on external factors was something we excluded from the cockpit. We didn't base our decision on anything but safety of flight.

One night I was involved in an operation tracking someone on the ground. I had been involved in this operation all evening and into the night. I was involved in covertly tracking this target, and it was very important that we not lose them. A significant number of people, a lot of money, and a lot of work were involved in this particular operation. As some thunderstorms built in the area, I didn't want to jeopardize the flight by getting stuck in or under an embedded thunderstorm. At one point, I terminated the pursuit for safety of flight. Considerable pressure existed at the time, both from my own personnel and others on the ground and in the air, to stay with the target. I elected to make a decision based on safety of flight, without regard to external pressures. I felt internal pressure; pressure to perform, pressure to accomplish, and pressure that I knew would be levied if I failed to produce the desired results. I set it all aside. It had no part in my decision making. I elected to accept any consequences of my decision (because when one picks up one end of the stick, one picks up the other), and pressed on.

During a night rural ambulance flight in a King Air 200, I was called to a mountain location for a multi-casualty incident. An auto collision had left several people badly injured, who needed transportation to a large city. Other air ambulance operators were unavailable, and ground transportation wasn't an option. The airport lay in a very large tract of military airspace that was hot; it was being used for an aerial combat exercise. I coordinated with the range control on the way in, and as always they were very professional and helpful. As I waited on the ramp, I took on some fuel, and inspected the airplane.

I found a row of rivets inboard of the left engine, along the sparcap area, that were all smoking. A significant number of them. This had not been the case when we departed. I tended to do a very thorough inspection between flights, always, and I found the rivets in the dark using a flashlight. None were missing, but they were all definitely "working." Knowing that I had a medical crew waiting, multiple patients waiting, that we would be doing back to back flights to transport them for treatment, and that even the military was holding back traffic on a busy range to accomodate us, I made the call, and notified the medical crew that we were shut down. I waited until morning, and took the airplane to a repair center where the wing was inspected and all the rivets in that area replaced.

Absolutely there was pressure to perform, but it was irrelevant as my only concern was safety of flight. Conversely, there have been many times that I was one of the only ones flying under certain conditions, given that I felt comfortable and confident making the flight; those are times I said "yes" when others said no. In fact, when doing atmospheric work, often we'd look for the places that all other aircraft were avoiding (thunderstorms, etc), and go there because it was just what we were looking for. On other occasions, I took flights on nights when others didn't want to go, because it was safe, and they were being lazy. On yet other nights, even though I felt comfortable going and others didn't, I closed ranks, and refused the mission too. I didn't want my flight to pressure the other pilots or put them in the position of having someone say "he did it, why can't you?"

My yardstick for making such decisions has long been that the most conservative opinion wins. There may be several of us on board. Only one or two of us may be pilots. On an ambulance flight, for example, I may be the only pilot, but we may have several medics, a nurse, and so forth. I may be the best equipped to make safety of flight decisions, weather-related calls, etc. However, every one of us has a very personal stake in the outcome of the flight. If I screw up, we all pay the price, including the patient, or the mission personnel, or the cargo, or whatever may be on the block. Accordingly, we all have a say.

The most conservative opinion wins. If everyone on board feels comfortable going, but I do not, we're not going. If I feel very comfortable going but someone else does not, we're not going. It may require an explanation to them to help them understand why it's safe; if that's the case, then we may go. It may mean that they get off the flight and someone else gets on who is more comfortable with the situation we still go. However, I'm not going to allow anyone to exceed their personal limits or comfort range; if someone isn't getting a warm fuzzy feeling about the operation, then there's a problem and it needs to be investigated. It may be the only warning we get.

In my present "day job," we have numerous points built into checklists which require confirmation of each crew member, before we proceed. One item, for example, is "Takeoff Data" on the Before Takeoff Checklist. The response on this particular checklist is "Valid," and must be repeated out loud by each crewmember before we move on to another item. This is more than just a word; it's a verbal confirmation by each person stating that they have reviewed the takeoff speeds, weights, thrust settings, stopping distances, temperatures, and so forth, and that each person personally attests to the information being correct and valid. It means that we're confident, agree, and are willing to stake our lives on our statement of validity.

If at some point, anyone expressed doubt, then we're going to do something different.

Pressure comes from many different sources. For the professional aviator, the employer, the client, and a host of other sources can be the cause of pressure, just as it can come from within the cockpit. For one who doesn't fly for a living, the source can be a family member, a passenger, one's employer (got to be at work tomorrow, right?), people watching the takeoff, deteriorating weather, dwindling fuel, and lots and lots of other sources.

In every case, one can certainly consider the source and consider the information, but one can never allow the pressure to have any part in the decision making process.

I once arrived in a hangar at night to find mechanics removing a propeller governor. I asked them what was the matter, and they said that the pilot had reported that the governor was "jammed" and that it wouldn't work. I expressed surprise, as that doesn't happen to a propeller governor. They said see for yourself, it's there on the bench. Sure enough, the governor wouldn't move; the lever arm was fixed in place, and couldn't be moved using the cockpit control.

I asked when the pilot had discovered this, and how his feather checks and RPM checks had gone, before takeoff. As it turns out, he had discovered the problem before he got on the runway, but elected to take off and fly back in that condition, anyway. He had departed from a maintenance base where the problem could have been addressed. He didn't want to stay there; he had no clothing, it was temporary quarters that weren't his own, and he wanted to get back to XXXX. So, he departed.

I pointed out that there was nothing wrong with the governor; someone had allowed an improperly twisted bite of safety wire to snare the lever arm on the governor assembly. The assembly was fine, and worked properly once the safety wire was cut, removed, and properly reapplied. Entirely unnecessarily, this pilot had allowed meaningless self-imposed pressure to entice him to takeoff without any ability to feather the propeller or control it's RPM, over hostile terrain, in a very dangerous place, and fly along a routing that contained nearly all the local indigenous population (also dangerous), to our location. A failure of this engine would have meant with absolute certainty that he couldn't have sustained flight, without the ability to feather the propeller. He had no business taking off. He was fortunate that the flight was uneventful, but he jeopardized himself, one of our aircraft, and just as importantly, exposed the risk of allowing the equipment on board to become property of those who shouldn't have had access to it, if he went down. A very bad call, all based on foolish pressure.

When I was a newly minted private pilot, I made my first flight with a passenger at night, and elected to go to a location on the desert. With no horizon and few references, and mountains in the area (along with mountain waves, potentially disorienting turbulence, and one engine and one vacum pump and one generator, I blasted off, full of overconfidence, with my mother on board. I was seventeen years old at the time, I'd flown this route in the daytime, and felt sure that nothing could go wrong. I had a little bit of time under the hood doing flight by reference to instruments, and it was truly a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

Off I went. I noticed the ammeter flickering at some point during the flight, but didn't pay much attention. I'd seen it do that before, and I knew intuitively that even if the electrical system failed completely, the engine wouldn't quit, because I had two good magnetos. I had three light sources in my bag, lots of redundancy, and I pressed on.

At some point, as you've probably guessed, the alternator did give up the ghost. I should have turned back, but by the time it did, and by the time the battery began to go dead, we were out over the west desert, hopelessly in instrument conditions (VFR night over the mountains and desert in a remote place), and I had become the victim of my own stupidity. No problem, I thought. I turned on a flashlight ("torch"), but the batteries had died. I discarded it, and tried a maglight. the bulb failed. I installed a bulb out of the tailcap, but it was no good. I tried a third flashlight (all three worked before the flight, I was sure of it), and had no luck. Finally, out of lights, I grabbed a chemical light stick and broke it. The cockpit flooded with light, and I was blinded.

I realized that with this, I would be able to see the instruments, but had no electronic nav, and was feeling more lost as time went on. At lengt, I dropped the chemlight down my shirt to reduce the glare, then did a turn to see if I could spot a slightly lighter area in the sky against the mountaintops. I was able to do that, and followed the very faint light pollution back to civilization and the city, and went on to land at my home airport.

That event was a series of small blunders that could easily have become the proverbial links in the mishap chain. I exceeded my own comfort zone, I pressed on, I disregarded warning signs, I flew beyond my experience level, and I allowed my internal pressure to perform in front my mother to do all those things.

At some point in our flying careers, be they professional or private, we can look back and see the experience landscape dotted with events that are best viewed as "learning experiences." I can look back over the years and the hours and see places where I got lucky, and learned, or that I ignorantly passed through, and later in retrospect learned. Or mistakes I made, from which I learned. I try very hard today to not put myself into "learning situations," like that. Steve McGarrett, of Hawaii Five-O, once said "We don't make mistakes here, Danno. We just learn great lessons." While that may be true, and I like his moxy, I've made great mistakes over the years, and for the most part, been fortunate to learn the great lessons that were the result.

One of the most important ones I've learned (and I know you know this and that I'm "preaching to the choir"), is to work very hard to winnow the wheat from the chaff, and separate safety of flight from the pressure issues. I firmly believe that there's no flight which must be made. I've done ambulance, law enforcement, military, airline, cargo, charter, fractional, fire, and all kinds of other flying, each with it's own unique requirements and attendant pressures. In each case, one has got to be able to say "no," and one has got to know when to say "yes," and even when to say "we can't do that, but we can do this." Sometimes it's a fine line, but most of the time it's not; it's usually a well defined line that we make thinner when we allow ourselves to feel "pressure."