C172 and check lists

[Volorovescio]

Hello guys!
Do you teach to use check lists in all phases, like approach and final or you use check list only for start up and before take off and the rest by memory?!
I had a conversation where some instructors says that since the C172 is a simple aircraft they don't teach to use ck list in final to students since they might loose loc or glide; instead I suggest to use it to don't forget anything.
What do you think?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have my own checklist when I instruct. It is designed with both "do list" sections and "checklist" sections.

Do lists (ie read the action and then do it, read the next item and do it etc) are

-Prestart
-Taxi
-Pretakeoff
-Cruise
-Descent and approach
-Shutdown

Checklists (ie do all the actions as a flow and then when complete and when able review the checklist to "check" you have not forgotten anything) are

-After start
-Runup
-prelanding
-After landing

The idea is that when the aircraft is stopped or in cruise flight you can do the head down "do" lists

When it is important that you be looking out the windshield then you do the "check" lists

I have also arranged all checks so that they flow in the same a logical pattern around the instrument panel.

I personally do not believe in pure memory checks as I think the check should be specific to the aircraft.

[RTN11]

I never get my students getting a checklist out in flight, all airborne checks are done from memory. If the student wants to, he can do ground checks from memory too, they never miss anything. A C172 is not the most complicated machine to operate.

[Skipping Classes]

In my opinion it depends on where the student is heading to...

For a future professional pilot it is a real good idea to learn using the checklists on a simple airplane from the very beginning as this is what they will be doing for the rest of their careers... A PPL only pilot who will never fly anything but C172 can get away with memory items, however ideal solution in my opinion is take-off and landing checklists placarded somewhere on the dashboard or on the sun-visor, like we used to have in the old pipers.

But how do you know he/she'll never fly anything bigger than C172? :)

I also really like teaching do-flows supplemented by check-lists like we do in transport aviation and it works.

OM

[mad_jock]

It doesn't matter what they are going on to do. Teach them how to fly the current machine properly.

Its one of the reasons why we have so many instructors teaching persudo airline ops to PPL's they think adding half the gusts, 3 deg approaches is the way your ment to fly light aircraft.

It does them no favours teaching the airline style when they are not flying an airliner.

[Skipping Classes]

They are not going to crash a 172 flying sudo-airline style, but their old habits/shortcuts can get them into trouble once they progress to a more advanced machine. My personal opinion of course.

For example not being apple to plan a glide properly and relying on side-slipping every time to land on the target.

3 degrees approaches have nothing to do with flying a heavy aircraft, it is just basic IFR and a good exercise as well. (we also fly steep approaches to certain airports on certain jets)

Back on the subject, teaching the students to perform checklists/drills at a certain stages of the flight, especially in the emergency situations, when we really need them, can be best done from the very beginning, so they are used to this kind of workload and planning, and don't think of checklists as something optional, only applicable when time permits.

On other hand, keep the checklists to the point, so that they CAN be performed in the emergency situation as well (that is not two pages, but just a few most crucial simple items)

[RTN11]

In an airline, if you have an engine failure/fire, once any memory items are complete the pilot not flying would get the checklist and run any remaining checks, including attempted restart if appropriate.

In a C172, you don't have this option, are you expecting a student to refer to a checklist even in emergency ops? If they are able to memorise emergency items then why not the landing checks? why not after landing checks? why not all the checks?

[mad_jock]

they do, they end up stuffing the nose in, getting blown off the side of runway because they carry to much speed in the approach.

They also don't have a hope in hell of making the field if the donk goes because they are on a shallow approach.

If they are that talent limited they can't make the change they shouldn't going pro anyway.

I use checklists everyday at work I don't use them in SEP's I will do things in a light aircraft that I wouldn't do in a CAT aircraft. But then again I can fly both properly.

All it does is mean is that the whole of the GA scene is posioned by persudo airline ops which is a significant safety concern.

Edited to add if you are teaching them for a MPL crack on because as such your not teaching them to fly either privately or commercially SEP aircraft. Any other license or qual your not doing your job properly because the student isn't being taught properly how to fly an SEP.

[Cows getting bigger]

SEP instructor here.

At the beginning, it is useful to provide a list of checks that need to be completed whilst a student familiarises himself with an aircraft. After a while, I wouldn't expect to see a student pilot doing a walk-round with a checklist in his hands; he should know what to look for.

Inside the aircraft is much the same. A list to follow whilst he learns how to switch the machine on but a well composed checklist (together with an ergonomically designed aircraft) will quickly encourage the pilot to use some kind of flow.

With my examiner's hat on, it is clear that we do not expect the use of a checklist, we expect pilots to complete all necessary checks. A few well thought-out mnemonics is more than enough in this basic environment.

As for the "teach them in the manner they will be airline pilots" argument is concerned - tosh. The vast majority of student pilots where I fly (and I suspect most other flying clubs) have no intention of doing anything other than fly for pleasure. This includes the 78 year old who first solo'd last week! If people want to learn how to fly airlines from the outset, there are enough schools out there who will happily take your money, let you wear a shirt with epaulettes and teach multi-crew techniques in spades.

[mrmum]

For example not being apple to plan a glide properly and relying on side-slipping every time to land on the target.
I don't think that this is a bad habit at all, or indicative of a lack of ability. Indeed, depending on aircraft type, I would even say that doing this was good technique and probably showed the pilot was confident in his handling of the aircraft. Sideslipping is a very useful skill to have in your repertoire, which is disappointingly, not taught enough by some.

[Pilot DAR]

I'm not an instructor.

I suggest it is unwise to allow newer pilots to consider it acceptable to not use a written checklist at all phases of flight. That said, of course, a lot of us do not in some circumstances. This becomes a "do a I say, not as I do" type situation.

After yearly 3000 hours flying the C 150 I have owned for 25 years, no, I do not refer to the paper checklist for it - at all. I'm sure I can remember all of the important steps of getting it into the air, and safely back. But, this lack of thoroughness on my part does show up as a shortcoming, and my failing. Naturally, when I fly my friend's 172, I similarly don't bother, so I tend to frequently forget two items which are different on that plane than mine - fuel pump, and cowl flaps. These are not fatal oversights, but certainly I am lining up a Swiss cheese hole by forgetting the fuel pump for takeoff.

In my effort to ward off complacency, I am going back to paper checklists for all phases of flight, for aircraft I do not fly as regularly. (the Tiger Moth does not seem to have one!). When I fly the Caravan, I step through every checklist item ever time. During my checkout, I was required to commit just a few checklist emergency items to memory, the rest, I'm expected to pick up the paper.

When I do a walkaround check of the SW300, or MD500, I will carry the walkaround checklist, or the actual flight manual around with me during the inspection.

Little things will catch you out, and can become very expensive mistakes. The Siai Marchetti I have been flying requires that the fuel selector and propeller/fuel control lever both be found in the "off" position, prior to attempting a start, or an additional prestart step is required to prevent expensive engine damage. Luckily, while referring to the prestart checklist, I noticed that someone had moved the propeller lever, and therefore that special prestart procedure was required. Had I not, I would have possibly been responsible for an engine hot section inspection.

If you're flying an amphibian with me aboard, I won't be letting you land, until you have spoken one the checklist items: "wheels are down for landing on land" or "wheels are up for landing on water", and make the appropriate visual check. EVERY amphibian landing I make will be preceded with those words out loud.

Yes, most pilots can get away with "remembering" the contents of a C172, and other similar type checklist, but to teach that it is acceptable to do so, it to teach complacency!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Broadly speaking, I agree with you DAR.

The checklist does not have to be printed - it can be from memory it can (and often sensibly is) be from a menomic. BUT, it has to be correct and consistent.

My personal system is sort of modular - I have a folder of bits that I pick from (generic checklist, type information, avionics checks....) to build my kneeboard for a trip. What I've tended to do now I have a little instructional experience is to hand my version to a student (in reality a qualified pilot I'm refreshing or training onto a type), a copy of my system as applicable to that aeroplane and type of flying and invite them to do one of:

(a) use it, or
(b) use an alternative commercial or club checklist appropriate to type and role, or
(c) come up with their own checklist or system, and use that consistently.

I seem to end up with a mixture, but if they consistently get everything right in an appropriate order, I'm happy.

What can't be tolerated is no systematic method of doing checks, or checks done in a manner that doesn't allow me to confirm what they're doing (which so far when I challenge them has always shown they're being sloppy and missing stuff). What also can't be tolerated however is somebody who can't handle key actions (departure checks, approach checks, engine fire drills...) without referring to their printed checklist - some stuff needs to be in memory.

The majority of "grow up" pilots do tend to slip into using mnemonics or memory in the air and a printed checklist on the ground, but having some form of printed checklist available in the air in case of memory failure. I count myself into that category, along with most people I'd be happy flying in the back behind.

G

[S-Works]

My checklist is in my head. Nearly a thousand hours in my 172 and still going strong so I guess it works.....

[Pull what]

I had a conversation where some instructors says that since the C172 is a simple aircraft they don't teach to use ck list in final to students since they might loose loc or glide; instead I suggest to use it to don't forget anything.Checklist on final? Loose the glide? You need to worry more about loosing your life in an aerial collision. Ive never heard of anyone using a checklist on final approach in a SE aircraft! Circuits = eyes out,- as I write this I see there has been an aerial collision near Leicester airfield

You know MJ for someone who thinks he is a modern instructor can't believe you are in the " must be able to glide to the runway approach camp" that went out with Tiger Moths!

[RTN11]

What final approach checks are there in a C172? I can't think of any.

Just fly the aircraft down the approach in the correct configuration, power as required to achieve the desired speed, maybe alter carb heat, and make a radio call. What checks are there?

[mad_jock]

Where have I stated that?, there is though don't put yourself in an increased risk position.

Sometimes there is an acceptable risk because of the gain ie instrument training or instrument approach in IMC. The learning of instrument flying and the added safety of the instrument approach in IMC outways not doing a normal SEP approach which is steeper than 3 deg.

Alot of airports these days have significant built up areas with problematic places to do a forced landing in the under shoot. Flying a 4 mile 3 deg approach for no other reason than I want to pretend to be an airline pilot isn't showing good PIC risk assement.

[S-Works]

As a witness to today's Leicester incident, I suggest we leave it out as its not relevant.

As far as circuits are concerned I am firmly in the camp that you should be able to glide the runway from the circuit unless local restrictions defer this. It is also what we look for when conducting a flight test, so dont think it went out with the tiger moth.......

[RTN11]

Not meaning to cause trouble but...

Where have I stated that?,

quote from MJ:

They also don't have a hope in hell of making the field if the donk goes because they are on a shallow approach.

I tend to teach slightly steeper above the 3 degree approach. Most light singles glide around 5 degrees, so surely anywhere between 2 and 5 should be acceptable? I certainly don't teach students to follow the PAPIs or ILS, as you will end up landing deep into the runway. As long as you are teaching the visual aspect and touchdown somewhere close to the beginning of the runway, does the steepness of the approach matter that much? I've seen perfectly well flown 2, 3, 4 and 5 degree approaches, if it's a viual approach it shouldn't matter (taking any obstacles into account).

[Pilot DAR]

Without wanting to take a run at Bose (particularly now), the memory checklist (and I use it too) would not, on its own, meet Canadian requirements: (my bold)

602.60 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft, other than an ultra-light aeroplane, unless the following operational and emergency equipment is carried on board:
(a) a checklist or placards that enable the aircraft to be operated in accordance with the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual, aircraft operating manual, pilot operating handbook or any equivalent document provided by the manufacturer;

I have a paper one in my plane, and specifically used it on the flight for my commercial flight test in my plane. Otherwise, it's at home in it's little pocket. But...

The fact that those of us with X000 hours on type don't refer to a paper checklist should not lead new pilots to the same casual approach. It is a poor habit to form, and lines up Swiss cheese holes, when you start flying unfamiliar types. If I were checking out a pilot on a new type, and that pilot would not use the paper checklist, I'd be hard pressed to send them on their way, until I believed that they knew that they really should use it.

Aircraft can have unique systems, and perhaps ONLY the checklist is going to guide the pilot through the correct procedures. On an electro hydraulic RG, do you confirm that the gear is selected down, before you turn on the master? If you don't, you're lining up a Swiss cheese hole again. If the weight on wheels switch is U/S, the plane might be sitting on it's belly moments later....

This, to me is one of the those subjects where, if you have to ask, you already know the answer. If there as any doubt about using the paper checklist - you have to. In my opinion, there is zero excuse for an instructor not setting a good example to a student at all times, by using and insisting on the use of, the checklist, at all phases of flight. If the student cannot manage the normal procedures checklist, along with flying, navigating, and communication duties, without exceeding their workload capacity, they should not be solo.

Years ago, while checking out a Cherokee pilot on his new Arrow, he was too self assured to need the checklist. I opened the throttle to full power, part way down final, and instructed an overshoot. He might have remebered to lower the gear, but he might not have either. He learned the value of a checklist after that.

This is one of those subjects where I feel that we as individuals, members of a group (PPRuNe) and participants in an industry, have a higher responsibility than just to defend that our personal, casual way of doing things is good enough. It is our duty to set a good example for those who will be the next generation of our industry - even you newer instructors! It's one thing to get to be complacent, it's another thing to start out that way....

[Pilot DAR]

What final approach checks are there in a C172? I can't think of any

Depending upon the model or configuration of 172: Fuel pump on (R172K, XP, or S?), cowl flaps closed (R172K, XP, or RG), Propeller fine pitch (R172K, 172 XP or RG),water rudders up (172 floatplane), landing gear position (172 RG or XP amphibian).

Ive never heard of anyone using a checklist on final approach in a SE aircraft!

Now you have. I would not think to land the Caravan, or Caravan amphibian without reference to the prelanding checklist.

[Pull what]

As far as circuits are concerned I am firmly in the camp that you should be able to glide the runway from the circuit unless local restrictions defer this. It is also what we look for when conducting a flight test, so dont think it went out with the tiger moth....... Ive never seen anything in an examiners brief saying that a candiate has to be able to glide to the runway from the circuit, not in the last 32 years anyway, unless you are examining a glide approach. In some of the ridiculously wide circuits Ive seen some candidates fly due to local restrictions or traffic they would be lucky to glide into the ATZ!

Whats this fixation about being able to glide to the runway, do you take off backwards then so you can glide back to the runway or perhaps you teach turnbacks. Most likely place in the circuit to have engine failure is on take off with full power selected surely!

[Pull what]

I would not think to land the Caravan, or Caravan amphibian without reference to the prelanding checklist.

What you cannot commit that to memory!? I flew a Citation, Navajo, Aztec, Seneca, Apache, C421 all single crew with memory checks on finals even with the CAA on board!

[S-Works]

I think it's horses for courses. As a caravan pilot and examiner I have the checklists committed to memory and wold never use it on final. I fly a Dornier normally and we don't use a checklist on final for that either. It would be to distracting.

However if you are not 100% current on type the. Using a checklist if needed can only enhance safety. Use what's suits you're mission. But don't assume your mission is the same as someone else's.

[Pull what]

But don't assume your mission is the same as someone else's.

Mine is to always arrive at the threshold with the aircraft secured, prepared and cleared for landing or go around-is there another mission Ive been missing?

[S-Works]

Nope. Is a pretty common one. However there are many ways to skin a cat....

[bingofuel]

Final approach checks.........CRAP

Hopefully not misunderstood by some!

[Pull what]

However there are many ways to skin a cat.... As indeed there are many ways to interpret situational awareness and airmanship of which mine includes not reading from a checklist on final approach or other inappropriate stages of flight in a single crew aircraft.

[RTN11]

Frankly, the CRAP check is a load of crap.

Carb Ht - Cold - Check the POH, there will be no mention of putting carb heat to cold. If it was required for the approach, it should remain hot all the way to the ground.

Runway - Clear - If it wasn't, you wouldn't be continuing the approach.

Approach - Stable - again, if it wasn't you'd be doing something about it. This isn't a checklist item.

Permission - To land - well, a lot of ops take place at an airfield where permission will never be given. A/G only, or no radio at all. Where does this fit in on your checklist.

Instructors who teach these kinds of checks are only trying to make flying more complicated. I bet they have a 500' point on the approach which you must hit at exactly 500' every time, and exact power settings for the approach no matter what the wind. Flying an aircraft is always a variable, and cannot really be categorised into this nonesense check.

Pre-landing checks on the otherhand must be completed, including gear down and other type specific items. These should be done long before the final approach, so on finals all you are doing is flying the aircraft. I would always expect pre-landing checks to be memory items, as they are usually done downwind which is the busiest part of any circuit.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Frankly, the CRAP check is a load of crap.

.

I have got to say I sure agree with that !

The purpose of checks should IMO be to ensure safety of flight important items are properly configured. It is not to teach you how to fly the aircraft, that is why you get those stupidly long flight school checklists. My C 172 prelanding checklist, to be memorized by my students is

Fuel................both quantity checked
Mixture............rich
Brakes.............checked
Carb Heat........as required.

I see a lot poster rubbish so called "airliner" check list methodologies. I think they fundamentally do not understand the under lying philosophy behind big aircraft checks. They have two features that IMO are entirely relevant to small aircraft and particularly ab intio flight instruction

1) They impose a consistent, logical, and predicable order in managing the aircraft and its systems, and

2) They are designed as a flows. That is all the actions follow a predicable pattern around the cockpit. In my checklist for the C 172 every check starts at the fuel selector and makes a counterclockwise circle around the instrument panel and finishes at the engine controls.

[Pilot DAR]

What you cannot commit that to memory!? I flew a Citation, Navajo, Aztec, Seneca, Apache, C421

Hmm, never flown a Citation. For each of the rest of those, which I have flown, it's my preference to demonstrate my willingness to fly the aircraft as the manufacturer intended - with reference to the checklist. I agree that it is very likely that I could commit the checklist items to memory, but I'd look pretty stupid if I landed the Caravan with the wheels down in the wrong place, or froze the Aztec passengers on the next leg, because I forgot to run the heater on "fan" on short final. I've never actually had anyone complain that I was referring to a checklist while flying. I would be surprised to hear that on a "ride", the examiner would accept a checklist form memory. I have been specifically told that checklists are to be used during rides - but, horses for courses, as I have read here....

I can't imagine what excuse I would come up with, if memory failed me, I was not using a checklist, and I missed something important. So, for planes I fly, particularly when I'm not really recent on the type, I read the paper checklist. But, so you know I'm not a total rouge, I don't use the paper checklist while flying my 150!

However, if posts I read give me to understand that some pilots (and let's talk Caravan, 'cause that's my most recent project) will purposefully not refer to the checklist I provide, which is associated with the flight manual supplement I write, what do I do tho change that attitude? If I approve the modification of an aircraft, and that modification requires a Flight Manual Supplement and changed checklist, how do I convince the pilots it's worth the effort to refer to the checklist when they fly the plane? Will pilots who would not refer to my checklist, read my Flight Manual Supplement? Will they fly the plane at the changed speeds, and with the changed procedures? Or just decide that they know better?

The approval does say "operate in accordance with...."

[mad_jock]

Being able to glide somewhere that has a fire engine at the ready.

As personel that are trained to deal with aircraft crashes and have the equipment to cut you out.

Large open space even if you don't get the runway.

Your car is parked there.

There is less chance of hitting a member of the public.

There is a emergency plan with all the services for dealing with a crash on this site.

Nah your right Pull what lets not bother going for the airport if possible, stick it in a field or housing estate your chances of survival won't be changed in the slightest. Right bitch though all that emergency gear a road away and a fence in between. As for the turn back again that will get you outside the fence might as well not bother and have a decent shot at putting it somewhere you have some control over the arrival.

[RTN11]

Being able to glide somewhere that has a fire engine at the ready.

As personel that are trained to deal with aircraft crashes and have the equipment to cut you out.

Large open space even if you don't get the runway.

Your car is parked there.

There is less chance of hitting a member of the public.

There is a emergency plan with all the services for dealing with a crash on this site.

Most flight training is done into a small strip where the fire crew are probably also the girls who make the sandwiches and run ops, and the fire engine is a beat up old landrover with a fire extinguisher on the back. And now a lot of flight training will be done out of unlicenced strips with no fire cover at all.

As for your car, that would be the least of my worries. Unless I knew something was wrong with the flight and needed to make a speedy getaway!

Obviously you don't want to leave yourself with the housing estate, but if there are other suitable landing sites, I wouldn't worry too much about being out of glide range of the airfield.

[Pull what]

Frightening MJ but I can go one better, lets stay on the ground and not go flying at all-it sounds jolly dangerous to me.

[Pull what]

I was not using a checklist, and I missed something important.
Ive seen people miss things out on check lists many times. Ever wondered why Aer Lingus landed wheels up at Bristol and Dan Air landed wheels up at Newcastle.

Mind you if you need a checklist to remind you to put the wheels down you probably need one to remind you of your name.

[mad_jock]

Aye thats proberly best for you pull what save pointless debriefs and dinsour practises still being taught.

I am quite happy minimising my risk exposure flying aircraft.

but if there are other suitable landing sites

Thats the crux of it in the circuit have an escape plan. BUt also think as well about where your going to have the best result god forbid anything happens.

Is it going to be Famer Dunks tattie park which the wagons are going to get bogged down in getting to you. Or the airfield with its clapped out old landy with a fire bucket of sand and the doris from the cafe. Which is going to be there in under 5 mins along with anyone else thats on the field all of which will have a clue about aircraft.?

But o no its more important to teach someone how to fly an airliner in an old clapped out single engine piston than exposing not only yourself and student who will be blissfully unaware but also the general public to your poor risk managment and poor example of PIC skills.

The sad thing is it just posions the standards for everyone when your zero to hero comes out and then teaches the same ****e to ppls who have absoultely zero interest flying an airliner.

[Pilot DAR]

to remind you to put the wheels down

Sometimes, there's no gear warning system whatsoever, and landing with the wheels down will wreck the plane (even on a 172) ......

[mad_jock]

I know of two planes that have sank with having landed with wheels down on water.

[Piltdown Man]

Simple aircraft, like the C172, should mean simple operating procedures. By all means use a checklist, but there is really no necessity to do so. Pilot DAR's also shows this to be the case in Canada: "a checklist or placards that enable the aircraft to be operated in accordance with the limitations specified". This text doesn't mandate the use of a checklist, it merely provides guidance. And if my memory serves my right, I didn't use one during any of my GFT's either (one in Australia, one in the UK). Nor did I use one while flying a Baron on my IR "Downunder".

And if you want to bring up airliner type parallels, my airborne checklist are simplicity themselves. Three sections: After T/O (two items), Approach (two items) and Before Landing (three items). These are performed by the pilot not flying.

PM

[Pull what]

pointless debriefs and dinsour practisesYou never did explain, how is a de brief after first solo pointless and why is taking enough interest to watch someone fly their first solo a 'dinsour' practice?

[Pull what]

These are performed by the pilot not flying.
Yes and already done by memory or called for by PF(without a checklist) and checked by PNF from a checklist

[mad_jock]

you banned for being a walt. And the there was over 100 years worth of instructional experience of the opinion that you were talking ****e and in all likely hood you were a walt living in a dream world.

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/418122-first-solo-de-brief-formal-informal-where-when.html

[Pull what]

What because I said I watch a first solo and debrief afterwards? See if you can answer the question, here it is again:

You never did explain, how is a de brief after first solo pointless and why is taking enough interest to watch someone fly their first solo a 'dinsour' practice?

[Pull what]

MJ, I do appreciate that a lot of your input seems to be to satisfy your need to insult and humiliate people, especially if they do not agree with you, but you may be better served by looking at your own posts before criticising others.

You mention ****e, so I have included one of your last posts below, perhaps you may see the connection?

Where have I stated that?, there is though don't put yourself in an increased risk position.

Sometimes there is an acceptable risk because of the gain ie instrument training or instrument approach in IMC. The learning of instrument flying and the added safety of the instrument approach in IMC outways not doing a normal SEP approach which is steeper than 3 deg

Alot of airports these days have significant built up areas with problematic places to do a forced landing in the under shoot. Flying a 4 mile 3 deg approach for no other reason than I want to pretend to be an airline pilot isn't showing good PIC risk assement..
If you want me to take your comments seriously it may help if you get someone else to write them out for you so I can understand what you are trying to say.

[Pilot DAR]

but there is really no necessity to do so. Pilot DAR's also shows this to be the case in Canada:

Uh, no... Please quote in context, not selectively...

No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft, other than an ultra-light aeroplane, unless the following operational and emergency equipment is carried on board:
(a) a checklist or placards that enable the aircraft to be operated in accordance with the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual

To paraphrase: No person shall takeoff unless a checklist is carried aboard (unless the flight manual (etc.) specifies placards instead of a checklist). So it really is necessary.

I find it surprising, and I suppose disappointing, that a group of pilots, whom generally I would expect to rise to the skill set of instructor, are so eager to abandon the required use of an approved document for an aircraft. Just to keep this all in context, my most recent modification project included a 24 page Flight Manual Supplement, whose changed performance section (only 5 pages) had a development cost exceeding $22,000. The FMS also has a changed checklist. If the pilot misses new steps on it, $5000 cost could be needlessly incurred, when the master is turned on.

What I see here is an apparent resistance to the use of such new documents, by the pilots who might fly the aircraft. Further to this, instructors insisting that they will train their students to attempt to memorize required documents, rather than referring to them hard copy, as required. It probably can work for a 172 (until it is flown on floats), but the plan will quickly fall apart for that poorly disciplined (trained) pilot, when he or she applies such careless habits to professional flying of more complex aircraft. Does this mean that in instrument training, the student is taught to memorize approach plates, 'cause they might have to be used during an approach?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Is the argument going on here about the use of a CHECKLIST or about the use of a PRINTED CHECKLIST.

Is anybody here really arguing that a CHECKLIST - that is, a list of checks (which might be placarded, printed, memorised, or recalled using a mnemonic) is unnecessary in any aeroplane?

The most vociferous pro-checklist poster on this thread is Pilot_DAR, who in his first post said:


If you're flying an amphibian with me aboard, I won't be letting you land, until you have spoken one the checklist items: "wheels are down for landing on land" or "wheels are up for landing on water", and make the appropriate visual check. EVERY amphibian landing I make will be preceded with those words out loud.

He didn't say he needed that check written down anywhere, he said that it needs to be done. Presumably he'd agree that there are different ways to make sure you remember that.

Whilst somebody arguing against formal checklists is Pull What, who said:

What you cannot commit that to memory!? I flew a Citation, Navajo, Aztec, Seneca, Apache, C421 all single crew with memory checks on finals even with the CAA on board!
Note, he said he does the checks, he just also said that he has them memorised.


Nor have I seen anybody argue that there's any good reason NOT to have a printed checklist on board in case somebody wants to refer to it (after all, most countries mandate the entire POH on board, which contains a checklist invariably).


This is feeling more and more like a non-argument to me.

G

[mad_jock]

I really don't care if a Walt takes my comments seriously or not.

[Pull what]

Whilst somebody arguing against formal checklists is Pull What, who said:I am not against formal checklists at all, Ive spent most of my career using them! I just believe that in a circuit, or on finals, its better to have maximum time with eyes outside in a single crew aircraft. I do appreciate though that some light aircraft checklists are so ridiculously complex that some would struggle to remember them. Always amazed me how my Airbus checklist was a lot simpler than ones Ive seen for Cessna 152s and 172s etc..

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah now, there's another issue altogether.

I have seen many light aeroplanes (including a few C172s which seem particularly prone) supplied by their clubs with checklists substantially more complex than the average transport or fast jet.

I think it's in many ways an exercise in self eggrandisement by those clubs, persuading themselves they're flying the next best thing to Concorde, rather than a reasonably straightforward SEP. It probably does little to help students learn in a sensible time, and probably is anti-safety as it stops pilots thinking for themselves as well - in the way that they might with a simple minimum checklist.

G

[Pilot DAR]

my Airbus checklist was a lot simpler than ones Ive seen for Cessna 152s and 172s etc..

This, I can imagine, if you're referring to a checklist developed by someone other than an approval holder with respect to the design of the aircraft. It does appear that "operators" of GA aircraft sometimes take it upon themselves to develop more comprehensive checklists, that that actually required for the aircraft by regulation. In that case, the pilot is entitled to revert to the use of the checklist developed by the approval holder(s) for the aircraft design. If the "operator" wishes to have their checklist be considered, they can submit it for formal approval. Your Airbus operator did.

However, the dislike that a pilot may have for actually referring to written checklists should not be based upon that pilot's criticism of a checklist which they have seen, and don't like. That's like saying that you only watch TV, and no longer read books, because you once read a billboard you did not like.

A person acting in the capacity of "pilot" is not entitled to judge a checklist or Flight Manual for it's content, or decide if it should be followed. Though I suppose possible for a few people, I would be very unwilling to agree that most pilots could memorize the minimum (required) content of several different complex aircraft's checklists, to assure that required (by the design) steps were not overlooked.

Teaching students that this would be acceptable, or writing it here, to a generally unknown audience, is irresponsible. Yes, under some circumstances, pilots can remember the contents of a checklist effectively - I do - but very certainly not all circumstances, or all aircraft types. If a pilot would get in right seat to me, and sneer, because I choose to refer to the checklist, I would terminate the flight, and let them out. It is a part of my two crew pilot briefings for flight tests, that I will refer to the checklist, and no one has ever had a problem with that - why here?

Using PPRuNe to show off how much you do not need to follow common, harmonized practice, whose sole purpose is to reduce or prevent omissions and unsafe conditions, is irresponsible. What a pilot does while flying under his/her authority is between that pilot, the aircraft operator, and the client. As long as it results in a consistently safe outcome, it is beyond the scope of my comment here. Pilots who mentor or intimidate other pilots into complacent behaviou, should really rethink the image they wish to present.

[RTN11]

I don't think any of us are saying that checks don't have to be done.

The main response to the OP was that referring to a written checklist while on final approach in a single pilot aircraft could be distracting at such a critical time.

A simple SEP aircraft is just that - simple. No gear checks at all, no prop checks and possibly no fuel pump. This really doesn't leave much left to check.

What I hate to see is students using a checklist as a "how to fly" list.

Usually check 1:

"hatches/harness - secure" if you didn't secure you're harness and shut the door as soon as you were in and thinking about starting up, what hope is there. Do you need a checklist on the dashboard of your car to remind you to shut the door and fasten your seatbelt?

[Big Pistons Forever]

In the training environment good written checklists are IMO essential. By good I mean short, only contain flight safety essential items and flow logically.

Like I said earlier I teach using the written checklist as a "do list" when the aircraft is stopped on the ground (prestart,taxi, pretakeoff, shutdown) and as a "check" when (appropriate to the phase of flight) for already accomplished checks which have been performed as a flow. So for example the prelanding is 4 items and I do not expect to see the student have to check the written checklist, as they should be looking out the window. The after landing "check list" however should be checked, again when safe and appropriate, after the actions have been carried out with the flow.

[Genghis the Engineer]

"hatches/harness - secure" if you didn't secure you're harness and shut the door as soon as you were in and thinking about starting up, what hope is there. Do you need a checklist on the dashboard of your car to remind you to shut the door and fasten your seatbelt?

I have a placard on the dashboard of my car to remind me to check my pocket for my USB drive, which otherwise I leave in the computer at work/home at-least once a week.

G

[S-Works]

There is no justification for using a written checklist in the circuit in a single pilot aircraft. Time spent reading a checklist is time not spent looking out the window.

Simpe checks, committed to memory are all thats needed. As you become more familiar with type the more becomes committed to memory.

Wen I first started flying my Cessna as a PPL it felt quite busy. As did flying the twin turbine commercially. Now they feel like twist and go mopeds.

I don't think anyone is saying don't use a checklist which is an argument that has raged here for years, but use it appropriately and understand that a memorised one is perfectly acceptable. It is all about ensuring the ducks are all in a row!

[Pilot DAR]

There is no justification for using a written checklist in the circuit in a single pilot aircraft

Perhaps unless the modifications I have approved on the Caravan require extra steps to be accomplished at certain stages of flight, and the pilot does not remember these odd features, until he reads the checklist!

Do you, Mr. pilot, want to risk wrecking a half million dollar survey system, or loosing all the data, because you were too proud to read a paper checklist in flight? When you have a hundred hours flying PIC on the modified Caravan, I agree that you'll probably have the checklist well memorized, and can recite it. Somewhere between 0 hours, and 100 hours, you will have to refer to the paper! (or I'm not going to sign off your training!)

[S-Works]

We are arguing at cross purposes and while your argument is perfectly valid it still does not justify arguing that a printed checklist is a must. There is nothing wrong with committing things to memory!!

As I have said a number of times there is nothing wrong with a printed checklist and if you feel you need it then use it. However I will not concede that a printed checklist is useful or even safe on final where your entire attention should be looking out of the window.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Perhaps unless the modifications I have approved on the Caravan require extra steps to be accomplished at certain stages of flight, and the pilot does not remember these odd features, until he reads the checklist!

Do you, Mr. pilot, want to risk wrecking a half million dollar survey system, or loosing all the data, because you were too proud to read a paper checklist in flight? When you have a hundred hours flying PIC on the modified Caravan, I agree that you'll probably have the checklist well memorized, and can recite it. Somewhere between 0 hours, and 100 hours, you will have to refer to the paper! (or I'm not going to sign off your training!)

Possibly DAR some people forget that there are a few of us whose flying is other than navigation exercises or teaching basic handling in a "known good" aeroplane type: important 'though those are.

G

[Pilot DAR]

useful or even safe on final where your entire attention should be looking out of the window.

If you can't manage the workload of a [probably familiar] checklist on final, how on earth will you manage reading an approach plate, and the missed approach? Certainly you're not memorizing those airport and runway specific procedures! Certainly the workload is higher single pilot IFR approach to minimums, than a VFR circuit?

[S-Works]

Here we go. This is just getting silly.

Firstly, VFR you need to be looking out the window for other traffic. Its nothing to do with workload, it is to do with safety.

Secondly when IFR the last time a look at the plate is prior to the FAF. After that I fly the damn aircraft. If you need to look at a plate when on final you really should not be there. I strip brief prior to the IAF. I confirm minima prior to the FAF and after that I get on with it.

So I will say again, anyone who has to use a written checklist on final is endangering themselves, the aircraft and others. Once you are established on final everything should already been in order to land. Final sanity checks such as props/mix and gear should be call out checks.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Subtle difference there bose - from not consulting a checklist in the circuit, to not consulting a checklist on finals.

Either way, when you're conducting a flight test, sometimes you need to use and consult with your notes (we usually call them test cards) which may well include some form of checklist.

I happen to agree that for normal GA operations, circuit checks should be delivered from memory - where a student insists on trying to use the checklist in the circuit, that bad habit needs (nicely!) beating out of them until they lean to memorise those checks. But, occasionally some of us do a job where that's not reasonably possible. In an ideal world, you fly 2 up so one can do the reading and writing, and one can look out; occasionally however that's not possible either.

G

[RTN11]

Here we go. This is just getting silly.

You could of said that and the end of page one!

Pilot DAR, are you seriously saying that on short finals, either VFR or IFR, your attention is on your lap on some piece of paper, be that a checklist or an approach plate?

In either case your full attention should either be looking out the window, or flying the instrument procedure with the MDA/DH memorised, possibly with a very quick glance down for any check heights on a non-precision approach.

Everyone should be able to retain a few simple checks or figures for a reasonable period of time, through correct pre flight planning, and self briefing before commencing any procedure (including pre-landing checks before commencing an approach).

[Pilot DAR]

Pilot DAR, are you seriously saying that on short finals, either VFR or IFR, your attention is on your lap on some piece of paper, be that a checklist or an approach plate?

No, I'm saying that on short final, the pilot should be paying the attention required to land the aircraft under the prevailing conditions. They should be "ahead" of the aircraft, which includes being "ahead" of the checks. (and approach plate, as the case may be).

Of course, that pilot will also have assured reasonable situational awareness, so it is very unlikely that another aircraft will surprise him/her by "popping" into the safe zone around their approach path.

When a pilot is "ahead" of the aircraft, the checks are a natural flow, and no, in the last mile of final approach, my paper checklist will be put away, with any remaining items briefed (even just to myself) as "to go".

As long as pilots will always honour up in the case where something went not so well, as a result of a missed checklist item, things should be okay. When I'm flying the Caravan, or Navajo, I'm just not willing to depend upon my memory, for that unfamiliar aircraft, so I use the paper. It's my choice, and I won't accept criticism for doing things as the manufacturer intended. For most every other type, It's usually from memory, and occasionally, I forget something (fuel pump on the 172).

It's just the silly lawsuits and so forth, which the aircraft manufacturers must endure, which drives them to put more and more in the checklist, then the operator adds to that! The other of my two planes has the entire checklist - all phases - as a brief placard on the instrument panel. Perfect! (you'll never know if I'm reading it or not!)

Sure, memorize the checklist, but take full responsibility if you miss something. It's no one else's fault!

But, Transport Canada will not approve a flight manual supplement I produce, without required checklist changes identified as such. I'm sure that TC expects that the new checklist items associated with the mod will be accomplished per stage of flight. When I did my last ride, memory was not an acceptable means of accomplishing a checklist - it would be a fail, and I was warned beforehand by the examiner - I think I know why!

As long as students, and new pilots, have the whole picture, not just their rock solid minded instructor's view on the requirements, all is well. One day, they might be flying something, where failure to use the checklist, combined with failed or distracted memory, results in expensive scraping, splashing, or silent sounds!

[172_driver]

I think it much comes down to how familiar/recent one is flying a particular machine. With 1500+ hrs in a C172 I rarely use checklists and do things from memory. Why? Save some time and money, yes, honestly. On a Flight Instructor budget I didn't drag around on the ground on the occasional spins I took for the pleasure of flying a bit myself and with friends. Of course something I had to take responsibility for, but with the familiarity and recency I considered the fact that I would forget something vital quite slim.

If I jump into an aircraft that I haven't flown that much, or haven't flown in a while, then I would certainly use the checklists. It will reduce my mental workload.

When I was teaching, checklists were used from day 1. Exception was traffic pattern where flows were committed to memory and eyes were focusing outside. At latter stages of there training I did remove the checklists, to have the student show me they could understand and operate the aircraft without a list telling them what to do. At this point they already had a sound attitude towards the use checklists and the objective of the exercise was something else.

[redskyventures]

If a checklist is used it has to be done right or it can be more unsafe than not using it, this includes a couple of basic principles,

1. A checklist should be just that - a check of items done
2. A checklist should have the minimum items on it that if NOT done it will affect the safety of the flight
(Long and pointless checklists will be ignored!)
3. Do lists should be a learning tool really, unless it is related to an abnormal/emergency or unusual procedure which is not time critical
(A do list is less safe than a checklist since it doesn't check anything, it is better to use in unfamiliar situations like abnormals because the unfamiliarity would prevent doing flow items effectively)
4. Single pilot airborne checks should be as hands free as possible especially if used in a critical phase like before landing eg control column checklist.
(for obvious reasons - regardless of type)

There are plenty of studies around on line that support this, and it translates for any aircraft, anything else is speculation.

IMHO acronyms are a good way of actioning a memory checklist to be hands free, avoiding the distraction of being head down - after takeoff downwind and final for example. I personally like generic checks or acronyms for light aircraft, since it is easier to avoid if you chop and change a lot, albeit this does contradict point two a little.

A your standard C172 wouldn't need a long checklist, ... :rolleyes: your C172 variants demonstrate the critical importance of a checklist even for such a seemingly simple aircraft.

Forgive me, I had to skim most of this, and I do say: cut the CRAP! The acronym and otherwise....

[Aphrican]

I am a very new pilot.

I really like the way that I was taught : use the checklists when you have time and do things from memory when you don't.

One obviously has time on the ground so there is no point in taking the risk of missing something during the pre-flight, start-up, taxi, run up, pre take-off (including a review of non standard take off procedures like short / soft field takeoffs and a repeat of the altitude decision for return to the field rather than a forced landing straight ahead after an engine failure after take-off etc), cleaning up clear of the runway after landing and shutdown etc.

An engine failure at 500 ft AGL doesn't really give one a lot of time so the scan and memory will have to be relied upon. An engine failure at 5,500 ft AGL gives one a lot of time. After trimming up to a glide speed of 68kts in a C172 and a quick scan, there is a lot of time to go over the checklist to make sure that nothing was missed (the fuel pump in my case by way of example).

In a stall, slow flight, recovering from unusual attitudes "under the hood" etc, memory has to be relied upon as there is simply no time to refer to a checklist.

Memory is a funny thing. I know that it gets very easy to forget logical steps when relying on memory under stress. If I am guilty of this error when an examiner is the source of the stress, I know that it will be much easier to forget a step when the source of the stress is a prop that has stopped turning.

The last check that I was taught do in the pattern is the GUMPS mnemonic (go juice, undercarriage, mixture, pitch and seat belts) abeam midfield on the downwind leg. Everything after that is about looking out of the window and flying the aeroplane.

[shumway76]

What about the legality part of checklist?
If I were in an accident / incident (touch wood!) and the investigators found that the checklist was not in hand / in the aircraft, wouldn't I be in trouble?

[Pilot DAR]

In hand, probably not, and very hard to prove, unless you admit, and I would not say anything in that regard after the event.

In the plane, well in Canada it is required by regulation (quoted in my post #19).

[redskyventures]

It depends on the air law - which will be both the country and operator specific, in a private operation, for a light aircraft (excluding the Canadians ;) if you say so DAR), normally a check list is not legally required.

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, it would appear that our Canadian regulations are a bit more strict on this than other nation's. I'm not familiar with the requirements of other nations.

But, you don't have to dig too far into the FAA FARs to find other examples where checklist use is required, for only slightly larger aircraft (elsewhere it mentions six seats).

For example:

Subpart K--Fractional Ownership OperationsProgram Management

Sec. 91.1033

[Operating information required. ]

[(a) Each program manager must, for all program operations, provide the following materials, in current and appropriate form, accessible to the pilot at the pilot station, and the pilot must use them--
(1) A cockpit checklist;
.................

For those who suggest that checklists can be memorized for certain phases of flight, it would appear that doing so (not reading from the paper) for fractional ownership operations, would not comply with the FARs. I agree that the checklist for a 172 can be adequately memorized, but if you're transitioning to a larger type, of fractional ownership, you'll have to get back into the habit of reading the paper checklist.

[WestWind1950]

in Germany it is required by law (§ 27 LuftBO) and can be fined (§ 57 No. 3d LuftVO).

In our clubs we have copies of check-lists, based on the original in the flight manual. Of course there is lots you can commit to memory, but it's good to have it to recheck in case of a stress situation. I do check mine after the walk-around and before take-off. I sometimes check it before entering base (important if you have a retract gear). Since over the years I have flown MANY different types of aircraft and each is different, it's good to have that peace of paper handy. When I instructed, each student received their own copy and of course I also had mine.

I really don't know why it's such an issue.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If anyone is interested I have copied the checklist I use when conducting training in a C 172. To put it in context a bit of checklist philosophy.

The reality is that a C 172 is such a simple airplane it is hard to screw up so badly that safety is significantly compromised. Therefore you can, and many do, fly without any checklist use at all. I supposed this is OK if you never aspire to fly anything more than a C172, but if you are intending a career flying commercially or flying more advanced aircraft then this approach is not IMO appropriate. To that end I apply the checklist philosophy used in larger more complex aircraft ( that is how the checklist is organized, checklists section headers, flow checks etc) in order to get the student use to how formal checklists are used in each phase of flight.



Pre-Start (do list)

Dispatch Checklist----------Complete
Passenger Brief-------------Complete
HOBB----------------------Record
Avionics & Electrical Eq-----Off
Circuit Breakers------------In

Start (do list)

Fuel Selector---------------Both
Carb Heat------------------Cold
Throttle--------------------Open 1/2"
Mixture---------------------Rich
Prime-----------------------As required
Master---------------------On
Beacon---------------------On
Nav Light-------------------On (at night)
Prop------------------------Clear


After Start (checklist)

Throttle-------------------1000RPM
Ammeter-------------------Light Out
Oil Pressure----------------Rising
Brakes---------------------Check

Pre-Taxi (Do list)

Flaps----------------------Up
Avionics Master------------On
Transponder---------------Code set & Standby
Altimeter------------------Set
Heading Indicator----------Set
Fuel Selector--------------Both & Quantity checked
Instruments---------------Check on Taxi

Run Up (do list PPL, Checklist advanced PPL/CPL)

Fuel Selector-------------Both & Qty.
Oil Temp. & Press---------Green
Mixture-------------------Rich
Throttle------------------1700RPM
Suction Gauge------------4.5 - 5.4
Oil Temp. & Press---------Green
Alternator----------------Check charging
Mags---------------------Check
Carb Heat----------------Hot
Mixture------------------Check
Throttle-----------------Idle Check
Carb Heat----------------Cold
Thottle------------------1000RPM

Pre-Takeoff (do list to the line, memory items below the line)

Belts & Doors & Seats-----------Secure
Fuel Selector-------------------Both & Quantity checked
Trim----------------------------Set for T/O
Carb Heat-----------------------Cold
Mixture------------------------- Rich
Flaps----------------------------Set
Primer--------------------------In & Locked
Mags---------------------------Both
Oil Temp. & Press---------------Green
Heading Indicator---------------Set
Controls------------------------Free & Correct
T/O Brief-----------------------Complete
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time---------------------------Record
Strobe Lights-------------------On
Transponder--------------------Alt
Landing Light-------------------On (when cleared for T/O)


Cruise Check (do list PPL, checklist advanced PPL/CPL)

Throttle-----------------------RPM Set
Carb Heat---------------------Check
Mixture------------------------Lean as Req.
Heading Indicator--------------Set
Landing Light------------------Off
Flight Plan---------------------Open


Descent & Approach (do list PPL, checklist advanced PPL/CPL)

Fuel Selector-----------------Both & Quantity
Mixture-----------------------Rich
Landing light------------------On
Altimeter---------------------Set
Oil Temp. & Press-------------Green
Approach---------------------Briefed


Pre Landing (Memory flow)

Fuel Selector---------------Both & Quantity checked
Mixture---------------------Rich
Brakes---------------------Check
Carb Heat------------------as req


After Landing (checklist)

Carb Heat-----------------Cold
Flaps----------------------Up
Transponder---------------Off
Landing Light--------------Off
Strobe Lights--------------Off
Time----------------------Record

Shut Down (Do list)

Electrical Equip------------Off
Avionics Master-----------Off
Mags---------------------Cycle
Fuel----------------------Both
Mixture-------------------ICO
Mags---------------------Off
Beacon-------------------On
Master-------------------Off
HOBBs--------------------Record
Control Lock--------------Install
Flight Plan----------------Closed

Notes:

1) Checks are designed with a consistent flow. They start at the fuel selector and make a counter clockwise flow around the instrument panel ending at the throttle quadrant

2) "do list" means read the item do the action, then move to the next line on the checklist

3) "checklist" means all the actions are performed as a flow and then when complete and time/situation permitting the checklist is reviewed to make sure nothing was forgotten.

4) By " PPL" I mean a student doing ab intio training. By advanced PPL I mean a already licensed PPL who is doing further training