Rejoin checks

[shumway76]

Just curious, when do you do rejoin checks?

a. Prior to leaving the training area & returning to airfield of origin
b. Navigation from X to Y airfield, rejoin checks prior to reaching Y airfield
c. All the above

Also, if answer "b" is correct, is it still known as "rejoin" check? You are not "re"-joining...

[Whopity]

Do you mean the "Field Approach Checks" if so, when you are approaching a field.

[fireflybob]

Call them pre-landing checks and it solves your problem.

Not the same thing at all!

Agree with Whopity "Field Approach Check" much better or even "Initial Approach Check".

Ideally a few minutes before you join the circuit - modern thinking is to do more in the FAC and less in the Pre Landing Check because when you are doing the latter you are in the circuit area when maximum attention should be to lookout and positioning correctly.

Hope this helps

[Big Pistons Forever]

Ideally a few minutes before you join the circuit - modern thinking is to do more in the FAC and less in the Pre Landing Check because when you are doing the latter you are in the circuit area when maximum attention should be to lookout and positioning correctly.

Hope this helps

This also the way I teach it. The student completes the "descent and approach check" either when descent is initiated (as for example for an arrival during an A to B cross country) or prior to entering the aerodrome control zone/traffic zone (if coming back from the practice area). This readies the aircraft for the arrival when things are not to busy. The "prelanding" check is only 4 killer items for your average trainer, fuel correctly selected, mixture rich, carb heat and a brake check. This is to be done as a flow from memory and should not effect the lookout.

Schools with long complicated prelanding checklists that require the student to go head down and read a piece of paper should IMO fire the CFI.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Schools with long complicated prelanding checklists that require the student to go head down and read a piece of paper should IMO fire the CFI.....

That would put a lot of CFIs out of work !

G

[Whopity]

I am always intrigued by the downwind Brake check, something to do with Chipmunks I believe. What exactly are you checking for? Most brakes are hydraulic, so if there is a leak, the check pumps all the hydraulics over board, and now you have no brakes. Do you check to see if they are on? Why would they be, you took off with them off? When you apply brake pressure, the brakes are now "on", only the rotation of the wheels will free them, so what if they stick, you have applied the brakes and could now land with them on!

It seems to me that this check which originated for a specific reason isn't thought about that much. What are we doing, Why and is it appropriate to the aircraft we are in?

[bingofuel]

I think the problem is that a lot of checklists are not so much checklists but are generic memory items that cover somewhat more than required.

I am an advocate of memory items in the air and written checklists when the park brake is applied. Unfortunately some people speak the words with little understanding of what the check is actually achieving.

The brake check is a good example, in the chipmunk, if I recall correctly partial application of the brake lever allows for differential braking with full rudder input (I think it actually restricts the rudder movement which is why check brakes off is a pre spin check) so the brake check pre landing would be to apply the partial brake. In something like a cessna, there is a slight possibility the park brake may have been pulled out in error, so check itis fully in..
'Undercarriage down ' or 'fuel pumps on' are other examples of a generic check.

I suppose it boils down to finding a system that works for the general ppl.

If they are to use type specific written checklists, then too much head down time. If they are to memorise type dependant check/action lists, then the risk of confusion or omission increases if they fly different types.

I suspect the rational is lost in history, when people would often jump into several different aircraft but used generic checks not type specific.

To risk a thread drift it would be interesting to discuss peoples opinions of written/memorised, check/action lists for SSEA.

[shumway76]

Next question - is it known as "rejoin checks" everywhere in the world?

I flew from XXX to training area, then back to XXX. On the radio I called "AA-AAA, leaving training area, request rejoin". Upon making that call & getting permission, I carry out the rejoin checks.

BUT,

I flew from YYY to XXX, upon reaching XXX I called "XXX tower, request rejoin". My instructor then looked confused himself & we were discussing - why did I call rejoin? You came from some other airfield, so rightly speaking you are not "rejoining"...

Any comments on this "rejoin" term?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I am always intrigued by the downwind Brake check, something to do with Chipmunks I believe. What exactly are you checking for? Most brakes are hydraulic, so if there is a leak, the check pumps all the hydraulics over board, and now you have no brakes. Do you check to see if they are on? Why would they be, you took off with them off? When you apply brake pressure, the brakes are now "on", only the rotation of the wheels will free them, so what if they stick, you have applied the brakes and could now land with them on!

It seems to me that this check which originated for a specific reason isn't thought about that much. What are we doing, Why and is it appropriate to the aircraft we are in?

Here's two instances, both real, one makes me look like an idjit:

(1) A Flightdesign CT I do the annual air test in. The brakes (hydraulic, no servo) like a quick pump on the pedals before they'll work properly. So the "B" reminds me to do that, before landing, so that on a short field I I have full breaking effectiveness.

(2) A 1947 Stinson that I do a lot of my PPL-type-flying in. I once had a slightly erratic take-off from a damp grass field, but it got airborne and flew fine so I thought no more of it. On my approach/downwind/pre-landing checks I did "B" (operate brakes, confirm parking brake off) and the parking brake was on - I'd (thanks to a combination of it's 60 year old ineffectiveness, wet grass, and my own ineptitude) taken off with it. Had I landed with it on, there's a fair risk I'd have turned it on it's nose/back. The "b" check saved me from my own earlier incompetence.


I am an advocate of memory items in the air and written checklists when the park brake is applied. Unfortunately some people speak the words with little understanding of what the check is actually achieving.

Me too - in this instance it's interesting to compare GA and microlight practices. UK Microlight instructional practice is to use the same standard mnemonics right across the fleet with no written checklists used in most cases. And it works - because the checks are applicable enough both on the ground and in the air, and to an extent because the aeroplanes are simple enough to cope with a memorised checklist - but in many cases no simpler than a PA28 or C172.

Mind you, scary how many PPLs seem to have come to a point (whether taught or from self created bad habit) that all checks are done silently and without reference to any checklist at any time. How the **** do they imagine they, or an accompanying instructor (or even just another PPL they're sharing the flying with) can be clear the checks are done properly, escapes me completely.

G

[bingofuel]

Shumway76.

If you depart and arrive from the same airfield, then the term rejoin is fine.If you are flying to a different airfield, then by definition you are not re-joining you are just joining the circuit.
I would suggest you use the term XX-XXX request joining instructions, or request airfield information depending on what level of ATC / radio service is being provided.

I take it from your reg xx-xxx you are not in the UK?

[S-Works]

Mind you, scary how many PPLs seem to have come to a point (whether taught or from self created bad habit) that all checks are done silently and without reference to any checklist at any time. How the **** do they imagine they, or an accompanying instructor (or even just another PPL they're sharing the flying with) can be clear the checks are done properly, escapes me completely.

Thats a bit to much of a sweeping statement Genghis. As you put your newly minted CRI to use and gain experience as an Instructor you will be able to see when the checks are being done even when not being called out. If you are unfamiliar with the the type then by all means use the checklist yourself to follow through. If you feel you are going to miss something then by all means ask the student to run you through, but don't assume that if somone chooses to do the checks mentally that that they are not doing them.

When not an Instructional flight why on earth do you need to let a paseenger know what you are doing? When you fly enough, especially a single type most people are perfectly capabable of commiting a check list to memory. I don't use a checklist to fly my Cessna nor do I feel the need to call out what I am doing to my passengers.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thats a bit to much of a sweeping statement Genghis. As you put your newly minted CRI to use and gain experience as an Instructor you will be able to see when the checks are being done even when not being called out. If you are unfamiliar with the the type then by all means use the checklist yourself to follow through. If you feel you are going to miss something then by all means ask the student to run you through, but don't assume that if somone chooses to do the checks mentally that that they are not doing them.

When not an Instructional flight why on earth do you need to let a paseenger know what you are doing? When you fly enough, especially a single type most people are perfectly capabable of commiting a check list to memory. I don't use a checklist to fly my Cessna nor do I feel the need to call out what I am doing to my passengers.

Nothing to do with my newly minted CRI, and everything to do with most of a decade of being the greybeard doing checkouts on a couple of syndicates. Not formally an instructional flight - but surely somebody wanting to be cleared to fly a syndicate aeroplane needs to show they're covering everything in their flying?

Routinely checks were being missed out, and to my mind the majority of these occasions were down to lack of formalisation of the checks.


And if you don't use a printed, memorised, or mnemonic checklist in your Cessna, how do you know you aren't missing anything out?

G

[shumway76]

Bingofuel,

Thanks for the info! I had the same impression too:
Rejoin - coming back to the same airfield of departure
Request joining instruction - coming into a different airfield.

And yes, registration xx-xxx means I'm not from the UK, US or China etc etc...

[S-Works]

And if you don't use a printed, memorised, or mnemonic checklist in your Cessna, how do you know you aren't missing anything out?

Not sure, nearly 2000hrs on type, over a thousand hours as an Instructor and Examiner.......?

It's an SEP and compared to my work airplane it ranks up there in compexity with a scooter.....

I am not arguing that many people wont benefit from a checklist. But don't judge every book by its cover. Over the years I have learnt to observe when people are following a mental flow. As an Examiner we are trained to observe and pick up on the slightest fault.

[bingofuel]

I tend to agree with bose x , it is not too difficult to observe whether someone is doing checks or not.
Some talk out loud, some do touch drills, some just look. The dangerous ones are those that recite the checks but do not do them!
When I flew single pilot air taxi ops , where the pax are sitting behind or even beside you, I was taught not to say checks out loud as it can upset the passengers who might think something is wrong. It was also standard procedure to do all routine checks from memory and only consult the written checklist for abnormal events.

Subsequently I have no problem with people not using checklists but relying on memory items providided they understand what they are doing.
Of course the less frequently you fly the easier it is to omit items, and then a written checklist is more important.

[Genghis the Engineer]

And why isn't that a memorised checklist?

G

[S-Works]

Mind you, scary how many PPLs seem to have come to a point (whether taught or from self created bad habit) that all checks are done silently and without reference to any checklist at any time.

And why isn't that a memorised checklist?

Which bit are we arguing? Do tell us how you are reviewing a memorised check list?

I don't have one printed on the inside of my eyelids. I have a flow that I follow that covers all of the required areas. I don't need to call it out for my benefit.

You are arguing semantics now Genghis. To put it simply as an Instructor and Examiner I am not interested whether the student uses a laminated flip checklist, has it tattooed on their arm, commits it to memory line by line or just flows through the actions. I just want them to do the essential actions and display they are truly in command.

There are many ways to skin a cat.

[what next]

Hello!shumway76: is it known as "rejoin checks" everywhere in the world?Not in this part of the world. And most radio operators would not know what you mean by "rejoin". Sometimes I wonder why all those countries formed ICAO long time ago and agreed on common phraseology in english while the mother of all english speaking countries insists on cooking her own soup ...

And all our checklists from C152 (VFR) via Pa44 (VFR/IFR) to Boeing or Airbus have an almost identical structure like the one in this example here: http://www.b737.org.uk/images/normalchecklist.gif The "Rejoin Checklist" is called "Approach Checklist" in every aircraft operating manual I have ever seen.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I just want them to do the essential actions and display they are truly in command.

Can't disagree with that. "Display" of-course will always be a little difficult to define and there will be an element of examiner's perception concerning whether something really was adequately displayed.

G

[Whopity]

is it known as "rejoin checks" everywhere in the world? I had never heard of a "Rejoin Check" until I read it in this thread.
Any comments on this "rejoin" term?
The use of the RT phrase "Join" was only added to the list of standard RT phrases about 4 years ago. It originated in Military phraseology and was considered to be a short and concise phrase that would be useful in the civil sector. The phrase is: Walden Tower, G-ABCD, request joinThere is no such phrase as "rejoin".

Rejoin Checks is slang for Field Approach Checks.

[MIKECR]

Got to agree with bose. I tend to let people make up their own mind if they need to refer to a cx list. If the persons already a licence holder and current/experienced on type then why on earth should they need a cx list. If its a new student then thats a different ballgame, until such time as theyre comfortable with what theyre doing. I dont want to hear every cx out loud either, I can easily see if things are being done or not. At the end of the day, its an SEP, not the Starship Enterprise.

[bingofuel]

its an SEP, not the Starship Enterprise. I have never seen a checklist used on Star Trek !

[MIKECR]

But you could argue Alister that feet clear of the brakes for landing is not a 'check' as per a cx list, rather its basic airmanship.

There are no brake pedals on a chipmunk, just a rudder bar. The brakes are set by a seperate handle and ratchet on the left side of the cockpit. Hence the brake cx - on or off.

[blagger]

CAA Standard Doc 19:

Throughout the flight the applicant will be expected to use the authorised aeroplace checklist.

Airborne checks may be completed from memory, or from alternative notes, but must be in accordance with the checklist and with each check item spoken aloud.

[Genghis the Engineer]

CAA Standard Doc 19:

Throughout the flight the applicant will be expected to use the authorised aeroplace checklist.

Airborne checks may be completed from memory, or from alternative notes, but must be in accordance with the checklist and with each check item spoken aloud.

Thanks for that Blagger, that just made my afternoon. (this document (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Standards%20Documents_srg_fcl_19_A%20v6_.pdf) bottom of page 7).

G

[fireflybob]

Surely at least part of the brake check is to make sure both your passengers feet and your own are well clear of the brake pedals?

The philosophy of checklists should, in my opinion, be "Did you do it?" not "This is how you do it"

In the dearly beloved Chipmunk in the Pre Landing Checks it was "Brakes - set (for landing)" since if you were landing in a significant crosswind you set the minimum differential brake setting (typically 2 notches - you should have established this on the ground prior to take off because it could vary with brake wear) which gave you better directional control on the landing roll out.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Re brake checks. I have had 2 instances in light aircraft where the prelanding brake check revealed a problem. The first on a C 172 was not that big a deal but a previously soft brake was pretty much gone when I gave the pedal a push. The other one was more serious. When I took off the brakes on the PA34 I was flying were normal. What I did not know was the brake reservoir had a leak. Over the course of the 4 hour flight all the brake fluid leaked out so when I did the prelanding brake check there was no resistance at all:uhoh:.

A diversion to a another airport with a long runway and a prearranged tug and tow bar turned this into a non event. Failure to check the brakes would have meant finding out I had no stopping power after touchdown on a 2400 ft runway:{

[S-Works]

CAA Standard Doc 19:

Throughout the flight the applicant will be expected to use the authorised aeroplace checklist.

Airborne checks may be completed from memory, or from alternative notes, but must be in accordance with the checklist and with each check item spoken aloud.

Dont get excited Genghis. That is guidance for a candidate taking the PPL skill test. Something I think you are not quite ready yet to administer.....

It does not refer to the type of Instructional flying you will be doing.

[Genghis the Engineer]

So you're saying that I should not be hoping for pilots to be displaying similar flying standards those required in a PPL skill test before, say, signing off differences training or delivering a PPL to an examiner for a retest of a failed proficiency check, or for an NPPL(SSEA) GST on transfer from another licence (all of which are within my CRI privileges).


On a less provocative note, it's interesting that looking at Standards Doc 3 for the CPL, the wording is identical, EXCEPT that the requirement to say checks out loud isn't in the CPL. I'd be interested in why that subtle difference exists, and whether it's deliberate or just sort of happened.

G

[MIKECR]

Genghis,

If your expecting PPL pass standard from the average PPL bi-reval cx, or the typical current and experienced syndicate/private owner to start reciting from their cx list and spouting every cx then your in for a surprise im afraid. I'm sure all will be revealed in due course though.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Probably.

However, if an instructor's role isn't to try and raise standards what is it? At the very least I can display these in my own flying (which I hope I was doing anyhow) as an example.

And as two of my examples involved preparing somebody to pass a PC or GST (and this thread started about standards in PPL initial training)....

G

[MIKECR]

Just dont expect miracles.

"is it reasonably safe?"......that is the question.

You should spend a weekend at my local aero club Gengis. Better than any airshow! ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

"Is it safe enough that I'm happy sharing the sky with them"?

I do take your point, it is about "safe enough" above all else - my own ideas of flying perfection can be shared, but not imposed.

G

N.B. Is this you? Mike Cross - High Powered, Low Flying (SH-1011) (http://www.mikecross.com/discs.asp?id=3)

[MIKECR]

Lol....no, most definitely not. I dont have a musical note in me im afraid!

[S-Works]

Genbhis, i like yoir dedication! An Instructors role is indeed raise standards. But that does not mean making everyone fly like a newly minted PPL. We have to realise that as a pilots experience grows that they learn new ways to deal with routine tasks that may not necessarily be the way that you and I do them, but nonetheless they are safe and practical. As you grow as an Instructor you will learn to recognise this and you may even find that you adopt some of these methods yourself.

None of us is perfect and as Instructors we should be just as willing to learn as those we are teaching.

As I have said before, there are many ways to skin a cat!