The dollars cost of reading written checklists.

[Centaurus]

While reminiscing about the good old days with a mate who flew Mustangs in the RAAF, the subject came up of written challenge and response checklists. In our era of the Fifties (RAAF) checklists were unheard of and all drills were done off by heart. The standard scan was left to right and it worked well.

Over the years, written checklists have become the norm at flying schools for light training types like the Cessna 172. Looking recently at the significant number of written checklist challenge and response items from start up to close down, used by some flying schools, it struck me that the cost in terms of time and therefore money taken to read from written checklists, is quite high.

Nowadays, six dollars per minute is a typical hiring rate dual for a Cessna single. Once the VDO starts running, it costs the average student at major general aviation airports, from engine start to the completion of line-up checks, roughly ten minutes of checklist reading. That's nearly sixty dollars gone down the drain challenging/responding to an instructor; or to himself if flying solo. And the aircraft is not even airborne yet...

It all adds up to the ever increasing expense of learning to fly - especially at the so-called "sausage machine" flying schools where students pay big money to become airline pilots of the future. Not only does blind reliance on lengthy and often superfluous written checklists cost the students money - but the unintended consequences of lengthy checklist reading has led to the situation where many students are uncertain of how to even start an engine without the crutch of a written checklist. This does not help a student's self confidence. To satisfy the pedants, perhaps the only written checklist should be a before take-off checklist, ruthessly culled to Vital Actions only, and omitting superfluous items that could be considered part of normal airmanship. And who decides what is normal airmanship? Now, there's the rub:ok:

[haughtney1]

Centaurus, as you well know, once the student leaves the GA mentality behind of certain training providers they are presented with a challenge....a challenge that you aptly describe in terms of having to re-learn skills that should have been taught from the beginning, i.e. a good robust methodology to learn and understand a scan flow.
I was fortunate, when I jumped into the C172 to learn to fly my instructor had already instilled a few simple pneumonics to help me get started..along with the flow and scan that went with it.
My favourite for a before takeoff scan/set up "To Many Flying Instructors Have Crashes"
But when I went elsewhere to do my MEIR..you should have seen the crap that was presented to me and used as a checklist....Jesus wept.

[Shagpile]

In the P3 we have challenge/response checklists written by Mr Lockheed and it's 1000 items long. Not uncommon to get to the holding point at YPLM still doing checks then say "Alright now who the f-- is around here" with zero SA. A good example of the law of unintended consequences.

I went flying in a J model Herc and was very happy to see they got all the airline reservists in to give advice on how to do it properly. Their checklist only consisted of checking items that would kill you such as trims & flaps. It was a much simpler process and overall I think safer.

Keeping in mind that all these items are already done, we are just *checking* that they have been done. I'll also give credit that the J has much more automation of systems and has no flight engineer, but still, I dislike the philosophy of extra cx for the sake of it.

Example:

P3 Climb cx (from what I remember):
- Landing Gear up
- Flaps up
- Autofeather off
- Pressurisation set
- sync servo's normal
- sync master selected
- mws [as req]

J Herc climb cx
- Landing gear up
- Flaps up

[Ixixly]

I've recently been tasked with creating Quick Reference Handbooks at my current job and part of that of course is putting in the Checklists for each aircraft.

I've never done this before and have of course relied in other jobs on the ones provided to me which have been generally quite concise and others have pointed out consisted of mostly just the Vital Actions.

Did a little research and came across this gem http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/adegani/Cockpit%20Checklists.pdf its a great read on what makes good checklists and what makes bad ones. As they pointed out superflous items or items that are often repeated make for bad checklists as people tend to start glazing over them which of course defeats the purpose of a checklist!!

I should point out i'm personally talking about your ordinary "CHECK"List as opposed to the Challenge and Response ones that larger airlines use and find that these work great in the smaller aircraft and what are what I was taught to use in my own training.

In my own task I took Mr Cessnas checklists straight from the POH, then sat in the aircraft and did my own checklists based on mnemonics i'd been taught since training and put these together to make them checklists that followed the usual figure 4 flow and covered all the essential items in their basic categories.

So far they seem to work quite well!

[Like This - Do That]

John Deakin wrote a column back in the 1990s that recommended a similar approach: Throw Away That Stupid Checklist! (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182037-1.html) and followed it up with Checklists Redux (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182038-1.html)

Seemed to make a lot of sense to me, worked well for the mix of PA28s, Citabrias, BE76s and Partbananas I was flying at the time ....

[By George]

Long winded checklists have been my pet-hate for years.

Boeing 744 Pre-Take Off..............Flaps 20. ( flight controls, hydraulics and fuel configuration all done before start and the trims with the load sheet etc). Wonderful.


Beech 76 at local flying school. Pre-take Off.......27 items!! (and no less than 61 items in the pre-start) . Distracting rubbish, encouraging heads in cockpit and complete loss of situation awarness. One Pre-Take Off item is 'circuit breakers', they should be pre-flight, not taxiing out.

[Jabawocky]

Centaurus

Once again you have hit the nail on the head. I see this at our airfield with one school, every flight.

What is worse, most of them sit there for hours with the damned mixture knob all the way in. I have seen the results of this on not just plugs and cylinders but fuel control units as well. Go to YPPF if you need to see it forst hand.

And then add to this....when they return:ugh: More damned checklists. My engine is OFF within several seconds of pulling up at the hangar, every time!

Stop now Jaba......:oh:

[T28D]

Given their experience in operating aircraft the USAF in general have a quite reasonable approach to this subject.

Simple example the T 28 a training aircraft in most of its models has the pre takeoff list on the left of the panel next to the U/C selector and the pre landing list on the right of the panel next to the manifold pressure, 6 items on each list.

[Old Akro]

And who decides what is normal airmanship?

I'm not sure that there is any interest in teaching airmanship anymore. It has been replaced by a slavish focus on rules, operating procedures, checklists and Safety Management Systems. The problem is that the more rules we have the more we remove the requirement of the pilot to think. "But I followed all the rules" is the prime defense and judgment is not valued.

The idea that students need to learn airline style checklists because they don't have the capacity to adapt to different styles of checklist as they go through their flying career is a symptom of this and underestimates the intelligence of pilots.

Fundamentally the checklist is about configuring the aircraft for its mode of flight as recommended by the manufacturer. Nothing more. The appropriate checklist & check routine depends on the type of aircraft and type of flight. Making this determination is airmanship. The required check regime for a non electric J3 cub bears little in common with that for an IFR take-off in a complex twin. I'm pretty sure that B747 captain who owns a J3 doesn't follow the airline routine on a Sunday morning.


Check lists should be situational. The checklist (or correctly to-do-list) that I do in the twin is different for a VFR flight around the bay than it is an IFR plan flight which is different than a one with a take-off into IMC. The around the bay flight doesn't need much more than fuel-mixture-switches and the only instruments I really need to get back safely are airspeed & altitude. A flight with an expectation of IFR gets full autopilot, instrument and engine checks.

Some time ago, I became interested in flow checks. I read on the subject, got cockpit photos and reconstructed all the checklists to conform with the flow pattern. Even drew lines around the cockpit that followed the flow. It was a thing of beauty, but for single pilot GA operation, nearly unworkable and by no means transferable between aircraft. I never used it.

The beauty of the old simple memorised "to-do"list is that it can be used on anything up to about a pressurised twin. The bit that needs to be added is the airmanship element of thinking forward about the flight and changing the emphasis or adding additional sub-routines.

In Australia TMPFISCH is common. In America it is CIGAR. Neither fully conform with POH's, but they have been successfully used for 50 years or more. They have been used successfully and safely long before the advent of safety committees. How hard do we need to make things?

How do you determine a level of airmanship? I suspect this rests in the pilots answer to why he is choosing to do a particular thing. Any answer that involves because it is on the checklist or in the rules deserves a slap. My concern is that we now have not only students but also instructors that could not do this. My allied concern is that we have multiple generations of students and instructors who have only flown Piper or Cessna nosewheel aircraft in normal flight. This is a very narrow slice of the flight experience.

Returning to the initial question, is it a waste of money? - maybe. But only in the school environment. Hardly anyone else charges by VDO time. Its certainly not the basis for maintenance. In a turbocharged aircraft, I do as much as I can with the engines running because it warms them more gently and is kind to them. 10 - 15 minutes of ground running is good.


PS, nice reference Ixixly

[Captain Sand Dune]

In our era of the Fifties (RAAF) checklists were unheard of and all drills were done off by heart. The standard scan was left to right and it worked well.
Still happens today in the training world and in single pilot operational types.
Although in my opinion we make the students learn way too many checks, especially in the CT4.

[Jabawocky]

Neither fully conform with POH's,

And while on the topic of POH's, and this is a topic of much mythical BS handed around for years, ONLY section 2 of the POH, is FAA's area of interest. The rest could be full of lies. So when you see one Bonanza POH talking about flaps for short field and another that does not, you can be sure either is fine. The FAA did not care for the rest apart from SECTION 2.

So when you see instructors and students harping on about it does not say you can do this or that in the POH, think again carefully. Ask them the question! Like walking into a bar and starting a fight and walking off:}

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

From the C150 that I learnt to fly 40 years ago to the C402 that was the pinnacle of my GA career, I have survived on:

T M P F F I H C L

Seems to cover what will kill you!

Dr :8

[Tee Emm]

10 - 15 minutes of ground running is good.



I'd think twice if you think that is true. Aircraft engines are tightly cowled and various airflow deflectors, baffles etc are in place to get best cooling airflow when airborne. Even though some aircraft may have cowl flaps mainly for ground running airflow, it is a fact that other engine components including various ancillaries, pipes, hoses etc get hot with extensive ground running (includes taxiing)because of lack of cooling airflow over the engine.

While there may well be optimum limits for turbo-charging "warm-up" I suggest that 15 minutes of ground running time simply to give optimum turbo-charge conditions is a myth. The other thing to keep in mind is that as CHT increases during normal ground operation because of absence of efficient cooling airflow, it results in less power being available for take off and climb. This becomes quite important when considering the already low rate of climb after engine failure on most light piston twins

All pilots should study John Deakin's articles on engine handling. They are the best you will find IMHP.

[Arm out the window]

On every type I flew except one (Caribou), we used memory checks with a flow pattern for the routine stuff, memory checks followed by checklist backup when time permitted for emergencies. I have always much preferred the memory stuff.

Rote learning by looking at cockpit photos and testing yourself from the checklist takes a bit of time and practice, but it's very effective, and I'd argue just as accurate as challenge and response if you put the work in, not to mention lets you keep your attention more on flying the aeroplane when it counts rather than having your head buried in a book.

PS Haughtney, sorry, but I am duty bound to correct this one whenever I see it (pneumonics are drugs used to treat pneumonia; mnemonics are the things you're talking about! :))

my instructor had already instilled a few simple pneumonics to help me get started

[Wally Mk2]

'Forkie' I still use "PUFF" prior to Ldg after all the normal check lists have been done..........some things are ingrained I guess:ok:

I personally don't see too much harm in chk lists,(mainly 'cause in my GA days I flew multiple types for multiple operators at times months apart) they are after all 'check' lists of items that are already done.
Someone mentioned CB's in a Chk list that where checked prior to star having had to be checked again. Fair enuf I can see the reasoning behind that to some degree(not checking them again) but in old planes these days a CB could easily trip/pop after they where originally checked so do it a 1000 times & find zip (which is great that's what we want) do it 1001 times & find the U/C CB popped due an elect spike (anyone's guess), better to chk for if nothing else POM:-):ok:

Wmk2

[Old Akro]

Tee-Emm

What % power do you think an engine produces at idle? I'm not sure, but I'd be guessing 5%. The cooling task is not all that big at this power level.

Typically the air - pressure differential between the top and bottom of the engine is 4psi or less. Engines don't need ram air for cooling - that's why there is the modern trend for small inlets. In fact the turbo Lance does not have forward facing air inlets at all. I have yet to see CHT's get to the green zone during warm up.

The key thing to warm is the cylinders and oil not the turbocharger. The reason that turbo engines are more critical is that they run at higher BMEP's and turbo lubrication is important for turbo life. The thing you are trying to do is prolong the time before the (Continental) cylinders go barrel shaped. One of the weaknesses of air cooled engines is uneven temperature distribution. The water cooled cars we drive are much more tolerant. Except for my old dry-sumped cars, I turn the key and go in my cars.

Also aircraft still use single grade oil. So there is a bigger variation in viscosity between hot & cold than car oil. You really want to get the oil warm so that it is able to provide the proper hydrodynamic lubrication to the bottom end and turbo. The top end relies more on boundary lubrication, so oil flow here is less critical. How long do you think it takes to raise the temperature of maybe 8 litres of oil by (say) 50 degC? At operating temperature Phil Irving suggests that as much as 10% of engine cooling is performed by the oil, so the initially cold oil has a significant cooling effect on the engine also. The optimal operating oil temperature is about the same was car water temperature - 90 - 130 degC. In cars, oil typically runs about 10 degC hotter than water temp. High temperature breaks down the oil and shortens its life. Low temperature compromises the ability to have a thin film for bearing lubrication. It is said that the pumping effect of the rotating crankshaft on the bearing creates local oil pressure in excess of 5,000 psi! There is also value in getting the oil hot enough to burn off volatile fuel residue and condensation before the engine has serious load.

One of the debating points is at what RPM the engine should be warmed. Tony Brand maintains that it should be at idle (500 -800 rpm) rather than the practice we are taught of 1,000 rpm. Phil Irving contends that the engine speed should be fast enough to create splash lubrication to the cylinder bores and underside of the piston. I think both views have merit, but I find there is too much problem with plug fouling at idle speeds. So I stick to the POH recommendation of 1,000 rpm.

In my aeroplane I find that cowl flaps are not usually required on the ground or on initial climb. It is extended climb and flight level operation at temperatures above ISA where I need them to help manage CHT. This fits the POH which has no instruction on the use of cowl flaps other than to maintain desired CHT's.

On shutdown there is value in letting the turbo's cool. That's an issue about turbo bearing temperature and bearing life more than impeller or body temperature. Although, if I get to fly the approach I want (rather than having it modified by ATC), then by the time the aircraft has landed and taxied its been at low power settings long enough to not be an issue. I open cowl flaps before shutdown to help dissipate heat soak.

John Deakins writes some very good things, but there some OWT's that he replaces with new wives tales. And you need to remember that he has a financial link with GAMMI. The better thing to do is read the references he cites. He actually makes that point quite strongly, but its not often recognised. Beyond that Phil Irving's book is still a classic and there is still a lot to be learned from Sir Harry Ricardo's original book. The best stuff I've learned about turbo's has come from the 2 guys that used to build the engines for the Nissan works racing GTR's.

This is a bit of a thread drift and a it of a rant, sorry. But there is a lot of value in warming engines that charging by VDO time discourages. I suspect that flying schools get through engine time fast enough for it not to be so much of a concern as it is to private owners.

[Mach E Avelli]

On engine warming: When the oil temperature is at the bottom of the green GO! My little Sonex is tightly cowled and on a hot day I am airborne within 5 minutes of start up from cold. If I were to sit on the ground for 15 minutes the cylinder temps would be almost at redline. At 20 minutes I would have to shut it down and walk away for a couple of hours to let it cool down.
Back to checklists: A major problem is the way that the CAR requires CASA to 'approve' checklists. There is no standard CASA policy - what you can slip past one FOI can be sh!tcanned by another. Many is the battle I have had to remove non essential crap from checklists.
The best approach I ever saw was in a B 737 manual published by United Airlines. At the very beginning of the book it said words to the effect of
"Procedures and checklists in this Manual have been compiled as a result of many years' experience operating the aircraft. In some cases these instructions may diverge from the manufacturer's procedures and checklists. In such cases UAL accepts full responsibility and liability for any changes"
Now, obviously the FAA made them do that. Also, obviously, they would not change stuff without a very thorough risk analysis first.
Operators here should be allowed similar policies.

[Old Akro]

Can't decide whether to have a go at the Sonex or not! But seriously, I think it has a lot to do with engine mass & oil volume (3.5 litre capacity is small comparted with Lyc or Cont). The Jabiru engine gets about 20% more power than the equivalent Lyc or Continental. So its clearly a more efficient, more highly stressed (not meant in a bad way) engine.

[Mach E Avelli]

With apologies for the thread drift, but I think being able to use multi grade oil allows for much more rapid warm ups in Jabiru powered aircraft, as opposed to say the P&W 1830s in a DC3 where I seem to recall it took quite a while to get everything into the green on the first flight of the day. Plenty of time for intricate run ups, bleeding auto pilot hydraulics, feathering props etc.
And we did it all without a checklist!

[compressor stall]

Operators here should be allowed similar policies.


Read the ATSB report into the Jetstar go-around and YMML.

For current transport category aircraft, as a general rule, the manufacturer knows best. Why would you operate it any other way?

[Centaurus]

Disregarding turbo-charging warm up operation for a minute, the following extract from the manufacturer's POH for both the C152 and C172, covers both the aspect of engine ground operation as well as minimum indicated oil temperature for take off.

Under the heading of Before Takeoff (sub heading Warm-Up) it says:
"if the engine accelerates smoothly, the airplane is ready for take off. Since the engine is closely cowled for efficient in-flight engine cooling, precautions should be taken to avoid overheating during prolonged engine operation on the ground.....During cold weather, no indication will be apparent on the oil temperature gauge prior to takeoff if OAT are very cold (-6C is mentioned elsewhere in the POH). Under these conditions, after a suitable warm-up period (2 to 5 minutes at 1000 RPM), accelerate the engine several times to higher engine RPM. if the engine accelerates smoothly and the oil pressure remains normal and steady, the aircraft is ready for takeoff.

A few years ago I underwent a dual check in a Cessna 152 with the owner, who was not only the CFI (in fact he was the only instructor) but he was an LAME and therefore a presumed "expert" on C152 engine handling. I was about to advance the throttle to 1700 RPM for the run-up procedure when he castigated me for not waiting until the oil temperature had started to rise from the stop. I told him I thought this was unnecessary since the OAT was quite warm and quoted the POH. He wasn't interested. So we sat on the dusty grass field for several minutes (he charged on VDO time naturally) waiting for the oil temp to begin to register.

During the circuit, he again got stuck into me for not carrying out a wide circuit (I was flying a standard circuit width of roughly half a mile wide downwind). He said that after the climb to circuit height of 1000 feet AGL, the engine needed time to stabilise cylinder head temps (no CHT gauge of course) and cool down for a while and the only way to achieve this was with a wide circuit and long downwind. So much for an "expert" in engine handling. Words failed me...

[Mach E Avelli]

Compressor Stall, while I agree that Boeing checklists are excellent ( I know nothing of Airbus) some other manufacturer checklists are hopeless. Particularly light turbo props where the checklist has been written more like an instruction manual for a private pilot with minimal experience. Who is really likely to sit in the aircraft and start with 'shoulder harness fitted ' go through 48 items to start engines, another 30 plus to get airborne, maybe 30 in flight items, including six or more after the gear is selected down and culminate at the end of the flight with stuff like 'lights off'?
Look at the Beech King Air. I suppose it was originally intended for the private pilot market, hence the prescriptive checklists. However, pilots familiar with the type should be able to cope with something that simply covers the really important stuff. I recently wrote a B200 SOP for an operator and pared the whole checklist to about 27 items. Of course it presupposes that the pilot is intelligent enough to switch lights on and off as needed and make radio and transponder selections without a reminder. Lucky for me the particular CASA FOI had relevant experience and agreed to this approach.
The Dash 8 and ATR factory checklists are almost as bad, but operators can and do streamline them.

[Wally Mk2]

I also feel that over the top checklists are designed/promulgated to appease the ever litigious world we live in especially in the US. Ass covering to allow for the lowest common denominator in the pilot world ( I look in the mirror daily & can see why:E) Besides SP Ops would be the biggest sector of non compliance of Check lists or personal modifications of same. SOP's which all tie up with Chk lists etc are simply there to have a base in which to work from. & most always dreamed up by the last CP as that's they way he likes to do it or was shown when he/she was a sprog:-)



Wmk2

[triathlon]

Centaurus
This CFI/lame you talk about is a d*ckhead. I am very familiar with the 152/172 poh's What you say is correct and he has no leg to stand on. Shame on him and how embarrassing for him to not know what the manufacturer has published in the poh.

[27/09]

During the circuit, he again got stuck into me for not carrying out a wide circuit (I was flying a standard circuit width of roughly half a mile wide downwind). He said that after the climb to circuit height of 1000 feet AGL, the engine needed time to stabilise cylinder head temps (no CHT gauge of course) and cool down for a while and the only way to achieve this was with a wide circuit and long downwind

That would have been the only circuit I would have done in that aircraft.

This CFI/lame you talk about is a d*ckhead. I am very familiar with the 152/172 poh's What you say is correct and he has no leg to stand on. Shame on him and how embarrassing for him to not know what the manufacturer has published in the poh.

Just because he/she has a qualification sadly it doesn't mean they actually have a good grasp of their chosen profession, be it pilot, LAME, Lawyer etc.

Truth be known it was his way of increasing his income by making the flight time as long as possible. Have you ever noticed that the people that do this sort of thing are generally piss poor at the job and are no good at keeping happy customers and need a way to keep the ones they do have captive?

[compressor stall]

Mach E Avelli - agree, that's why I qualified my comments with "transport category" and "current".

And Airbus Industrie checklists work perfectly word for word.

[BPA]

When I flew the B1900D the checkllists became known as the "Anti litigation" checklists, due to so many items added by Beechcraft to prevent further law suites.

[Jabawocky]

Akro
John Deakins writes some very good things, but there some OWT's that he replaces with new wives tales. And you need to remember that he has a financial link with GAMMI. The better thing to do is read the references he cites. He actually makes that point quite strongly, but its not often recognised.

You can believe me when I tell you that is 100% false. He has a partner in APS who is a partner in GAMI and TAT, that is as close as it gets. APS is not run as profit centre, rather an education centre. Their hourly rate over the years is measured in cents per hour they figure. So there is no financial gain for any of the Deakin articles.

As for new wives tales, please send me a few to research, that would be fun. :)

Tee Emm
All pilots should study John Deakin's articles on engine handling. They are the best you will find IMHP.

Boy do I have a delight for you, and it will most likely be the last opportunity you get if you want to meet John Deakin and Walter Atkinson in Australia. (20+ hours of travel and old age don't mix well apparently.)

Keep your diaries empty for the last two weekends in May. Watch out for press releases and the APS website in a month or two! :ok:


Cooling on the ground
This is a very interesting thing, that most people including the manufacturers have never bothered with too much. Tufting an engine and using lots of video camera's on the ground and in flight.

Most cowls do not process air through the engine as you would think, nor the way LAMEs are taught. In fact quite the opposite. And a lot of air comes back out the front and not as you would think. Hard to explain without lots of Italian hand gestures! A few very popular airframes exhibit better cooling with the tail into wind not the nose. Despite what the flight school tells you.

So point the nose in the direction you need to see, not into wind.


PS : If any of you have seen the list of aircraft types John Deakin has in his log book, well you might see why he has strong opinions on many matters such as check lists etc. I did not count them, but the list he has not flown is possibly shorter:D

[Howard Hughes]

'Forkie' I still use "PUFF" prior to Ldg after all the normal check lists have been done..........some things are ingrained I guess
Me too!!!;)

[Snakecharma]

I only wish the following was actually true

For current transport category aircraft, as a general rule, the manufacturer knows best. Why would you operate it any other way

It is clear that many manufacturers do NOT know best.

Certainly Airbus and Embraer do not. They are engineer led organisations and they design operational procedures which are very good from an engineering perspective but are less so from a pilot and or operational perspective.

Airbus recently advocated a full FMGEC reset to resolve a spurious message that went away (which in and of itself is a problem). This reset to be done within 5 minutes of pushback, which resulted in the total loss of all performance and Nav data entered into the boxes, and didn't guarantee that the same problem wouldn't arise again when the data was re-entered.

It was an engineering solution that did not take into consideration any operational factors, and to be honest crossed the line by requiring pilots in a time sensitive situation to pull CB's and reset buttons.

Embraer have some interesting solutions to issues as does Boeing at times.

These companies build aeroplanes, not operate them. They do their best but to be honest they don't know best.

[Centaurus]

So point the nose in the direction you need to see, not into wind.



Except of course the Rolls Royce Merlins which are liquid cooled. You could practically guarantee boiling the glycol coolant within a few minutes of idling out of wind in the Mustang and Lincoln. Even a gentle five knot breeze was enough for pilots to try and get the nose into wind for run-up. Apologies for the nostalgia.:{

[Centaurus]

They do their best but to be honest they don't know best.



Oh, I don't know about that. Personally I'd go with the strength every time. Does that mean their FCOM, QRH and FCTM are not to be believed? If so, who is to be believed? It would be a courageous pilot (or a crazy one) using that argument in litigation against a manufacturer, or in the Coroner's Court. :=

[compressor stall]

Snakecharma

These companies build aeroplanes, not operate them. They do their best but to be honest they don't know best.


So why don't you tell Airbus how to fly their jets? Do you analyse and have access to every permutation and consequence in bumping a check a few places down the list?

Airbus mandate calls immediately when the mode of navigation or thrust changes. Jetstar thought better and bumped the call until well established in the go-around. Then they very, very nearly flew a perfectly serviceable jet into the ground because of it.

A classic case of someone knowing better.

[Snakecharma]

Actually compressor stall and Centaurus, have a re read of my post.

Nowhere in that post did I advocate ignoring the advice of the manufacturer, what I said is that they are engineering led organisations that sometimes come up with engineering based solutions.

I don't know who you think manufacturers are - they are not some mythical being that knows everything about their aeroplane.

They are a bunch of people that bring a bunch of personal experiences to their respective role, in much the same way that people in airlines do.

In most cases the people tasked with designing a procedure in order to deal with an inservice issue are people in no way related to the design or manufacturing department and are looking at the FCOMs, maintenance manuals etc, just as we do.

Don't forget that the design work for all aircraft in service today, with the possible exception of the 787, was done many years ago, and the corporate knowledge that existed around why so something was designed the way it was if more often than not gone.

I have personally been involved in discussions where the proposed solution to a problem as initially proposed by the manufacturer has been perfectly acceptable from a technical and or engineering perspective but totally unacceptable from an operational one.

We have tested their proposed fix, found it unacceptable, explained why and proposed alternative methods to achieve the same thing. Sometimes these solutions are accepted, sometimes they are modified and sometimes they, for reasons that were not immediately obvious to us, rejected, but when pushed they explained and their reasons were perfectly reasonable. They have however taken on the feedback and come back with a revised procedure.

This is stuff the average line driver doesn't see, but nevertheless still occurs.

The final, published procedure is the one that is the result of work by both the customer and the manufacturer and is the one that crews should follow, however if left to their own devices, the manufacturer would produce a procedure that is sometimes not acceptable.

So to reiterate my original point, they do their best but don't always know best.

Whether you care to accept that this consultative process occurs is of course your perogative, but I can assure you that it does.

Don't get me wrong, the manufacturers know how their aeroplanes work, they don't necessarily know the best way to use it.

Lastly, to your point around the Jetstar go around issue, I agree that doing something in isolation is not a smart way to go, but that is not the same thing as saying that the manufacturer always gets it right..

[Jabawocky]

Amazing.... this started about the waste of money at the runup bay by flying schools and their produce later on......

I love this place. Mind you I am not much better :ouch:

[compressor stall]

Snakecharma,

Continuing this digression - there is a world of difference between:

1. An operator talking with the manufacturer and implementing any changes with the Manufacturer's approval i.e. through a No Technical Objection.

2. An operator with a bunch of pilots and engineers who think that their homegrown way of operating the aircraft is better and changing things as they see fit.

I suspect you're coming from the former, I was talking about the latter.

And to clarify - I never said always right.... I said knows best. They are different.

[Arnold E]

It is clear that many manufacturers do NOT know best.

In a former life I worked in experimental engineering of a major motor vehicle manufacturer, let me assure you, the manufacturer knows considerably more about their product than the people using or maintaining them. If the manufacturer says do X, then you can bet that the best thing to do is........X:ok:

[Checkboard]

That's why the manufacturer procedures NEVER change a single word, from the day the aircraft is first certified. :rolleyes:

[Centaurus]

perhaps the only written checklist should be a before take-off checklist, ruthessly culled to Vital Actions only, and omitting superfluous items that could be considered part of normal airmanship.

Just to keep the purpose of the original post rolling along for those sufficiently interested in checklist design, here is a copy of the relevant page published in Pilot's Notes for the Sea Fury. A.P. 4018A &B published by the Admiralty in May 1950. These notes consisted of 60 pages.

Final Checks for Take-Off:

Trim.............Elevator : Neutral. Rudder: Fully Left
R.P.M Control..........Max RPM
Fuel..............Check Contents, Main tank. Booster Pump on
Wings...........Spread and Locked
Flaps.............Take-Off (Carrier). Max Lift (Catapult). Up (Airfield)
Tail Wheel.....Locked
............................................................ ..............................

Final Checks for Landing:

Brakes..............Off. Check Pressures.
Fuel..................Check Contents. Main tank
Hook.................Down (if required)
Wheels..............Down and Locked
Tail Wheel..........Unlocked (Carrier). Locked (Airfield)
Flaps.................Down
............................................................ ..............................

Keep in mind there were obviously many other items published in the Pilot's Notes (start up, run-up, after landing etc) all of which were conducted off by heart in logical order. But the so called Vital Actions before take off and before landing were high-lighted in white against a black central page of the publication. These items were concise and considered vital.

Here is something else from Pilot's Notes Hudson V Aeroplane. Air Publication 1690 E March 1941. Page 8. It is headed "Final Preparation for take-Off - Drill of Vital Actions". The opening paragraph starts: Having reached the desired position for take-off, stop the aeroplane facing traffic so that approaching aeroplanes can be seen. In this position, carry out the Drill for Vital Actions. Even though these items have been checked during engine warm-up, it is essential that they be checked again just prior to take-off.

Tank selector valve.............Right Rear.
Airscrews.......................... Low Pitch
Mixture............................. Full Rich
Oil heat............................ Full Cold
Blower...............................Low
Cowl Flaps.........................10 degrees open
Flying Controls....................Free
Trimming tabs....................Adjusted for load
Gyro Pilot...........................Off
Flaps.................................Up
............................................................ .....................................

The language is quaint in comparison to that used nowadays. The propeller is called an airscrew. Also although the Hudson was an American design, the landing gear in the POH is called Undercarriage. Maybe that was because the RAF preferred that term rather than the American use of Landing Gear? But the Sea Fury which is a British design called the landing gear simply as "Wheels. Trust the Royal Navy to be different. It was not called the Senior Service, for nothing

[Snakecharma]

Compressor stall,

Yes you are dead on, and I agree with you re the homegrown procedures :)

[poteroo]

Have to agree with Centaurus'original posting - though I agree the POH is the legally binding doc.
I'm all for pruning the checklist to the essentials and keeping the students' head outside the cockpit.
This leads on to whether checklists should include items which are not present in the aircraft being flown, but which the student might 'one day' be using in a more advanced type. Big thumbs down to this!
The K.I.S.S. principle should apply.
happy days,

[27/09]

perhaps the only written checklist should be a before take-off checklist, ruthessly culled to Vital Actions only, and omitting superfluous items that could be considered part of normal airmanship.

When I learned to fly the pre take off and pre landing checks were called "Drills of Vital Action" or DVA's, and you had to know them off by heart, no check list allowed, I still remember them to today even though my flying now calls for the use of checkists.

I remember checking out a European PPL holder a few years ago and when it came to the PFLWOP exercise and the power had been "cut" he wanted to know where the checklist for the FLWOP was. Right at the time where he really needed to carry out some memory items and be head up looking for a landing site and planning the descent he wanted to spend time looking at a checklist. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Jabawocky]

though I agree the POH is the legally binding doc.

Are you 101% sure about this?

Calling Creampuff????

The POH is a story book with lots of examples on how you could operate the machine, on how certain things work and perform.

If one was to take that statement too literally, does it mean as the airframe ages and it now stalls 1 knot differently it must be grounded?

People seem to forget that the FAA when certifying the plane only cared about section 2: LIMITATIONS.

I have a feeling over the years, the notion of legally binding in all areas has started as folklore and is now law. :ooh:

As an example, two identical airframes, same part numbers on the wings and flaps etc, can have two different statements on "short field" take off. :hmm:

I may be wrong, ready for a nice serving of salted crow, but I think most folk have accepted folklore to be law. Myself included.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Without kicking the sleeping dog, Jaba, in today's envionment of "who can be blamed for this event", operating contrary to a POH certainly opens up a big opportunity for litigation when it all goes arse up.:cool:

[T28D]

Correct me if I am wrong but non complex G/A aircraft up to 5700 Kg now only need cockpit placards the POH is at best a reference book.

[djpil]

Somewhere in the regs is a clear statement that one must comply with the approved flight manual. Some old aeroplanes may not have an AFM so just the placards - however they may have a POH. The newer POHs generally incorporate the AFM. Generally not every page of a POH is the approved AFM.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Aircraft Flight Manuals (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90254)

[Old Akro]

From the CASA link on DJP's post The basic AFM for the aircraft is the correct and current maker's AFM that was approved by the relevant NAA.

Assuming Jabawocky is correct that only section 2 is part of the type certificate, then there's not much which is mandatory.

[Check Airman]

Airbus mandate calls immediately when the mode of navigation or thrust changes. Jetstar thought better and bumped the call until well established in the go-around. Then they very, very nearly flew a perfectly serviceable jet into the ground because of it.

Can anybody provide a link to this Jetstar incident?

[compressor stall]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/793232/ao2007044.pdf

Contributing safety factors
• The pilot in command did not correctly move the thrust levers to the
take-off/go-around position when carrying out the first missed approach
procedure.
• The aircraft operator had changed the standard operating procedure for the
go-around. The change resulted in the flight crew being unaware of the flight
mode status of the aircraft during the first part of the first missed approach.
[Significant Safety Issue]
Other safety factors
• The aircraft operator did not conduct a risk analysis when changing the
go-around procedure, nor did its safety management system require one to be
conducted. [Significant Safety Issue]

[thorn bird]

eI have an advice from our insurance broker to the effect
that operating the aircraft contrary to its certificated
procedures in the AFM without a no objection advice from the
manufacturer or certifying authority could be grounds for a claim
being denied.
Buggered if I'd like to stand up in a coroners court and try and
explain why I thought I knew better than the people that built it.

[Avgas172]

I have an advice from our insurance broker to the affect
'effect' TB 'effect' ..... doh! I bruck my own rool ..... :E

[Jabawocky]

Thorn bird

You may have hit the nail on the head.

to its certificated procedures in the AFM

The certified part of the AFM/POH hatever you wat to call it "as I understand it" from people far more knowledgable than me, and who actually do FAA certifying, is that it applies to section 2 only.

Assuming I am not misguided, and maybe I am, that means the certificated ones are section 2.

Anyone got concrete proof I am wrong??? Happy to be (well not caring) corrected but I do think this is another case of "the bigger lie, the more you tell it, the more people believe it".

If 90 of us on pprune say Avgas has an SG of 1.15 not 0.71 and we all start saying it, eventually everyone accepts it as fact, then it becomes fact, and because some lawyer uses this in an insurance case and wins, and sets a precedent (albeit wrong) then does that now make that fact a real one?

Just like fuel cools, more fuel makes CHT go down thus it must :rolleyes::ugh::ugh: And by now we all should know this is a complete myth. But for a long time this was accepted wisdom in GA, and still is with 95% of instructors, students PPLs and CPLs............. but don't start me, start another thread. But some lawyer may use this myth to win a case.:rolleyes::ugh:x100

[Trent 972]

Jaba, you're holding on too tight, you've lost the edge. ;)

[Jabawocky]

Yeah Trent, ya smarta$$.....not holding on too tight.....Just lost the plot completely :}

Yeah I know....proven ages ago. :ouch:

HNY by the way :ok:

I have been sucked in many times over by the urban myth, and probably will let my guard down and be sucked in again. It just needs all the myth busting we can muster.

I see why the Mythbuster guys have so much fun...:\

[Centaurus]

I have been sucked in many times over by the urban myth, and probably will let my guard down and be sucked in again. It just needs all the myth busting we can muster.

Ah! the old Myths again. Like saying gear down and locked on a fixed gear plane just because one fine day you will be flying a retract and need the practice at saying gear down 3 greens. Or. Open the cowl flaps on final approach just in case you have to go around and you might overheat the engine.. Or Mixture to rich on final just in case you have to go-around and cause detonation. Or. Never do a dead cut check before run up in case you bugger the engine. Or worse still, do a dead cut check during flight before landing in case one mag is crook and you need both mags OK in case of a go-around. :ugh:

[Desert185]

Deakin and gang have done a real service to general aviation in dispelling the myths that have existed for much too long.

The best checklists I have ever used were the ones I wrote. :cool: Unfortunately, I haven't written all of them. Using brevity and emphasizing essential items in a flow is a great path to take. I now contract for a government agency with mostly ex-military pilots running the show...and the lengthy, detailed checklists reflect that. The difference between a civilian (airline) and military checklist on the same type is a frustrating eye-opener.

A training checklist is necessary for the neophyte learning to fly, but I feel the "do list" form of checklist should be transitioned at some point in the training to more of a flow and check type of procedure as the student gains experience. It seems to remove the disconnect between the student's thought process and involvement in the task and what is really happening.

I have had my own airplane for awhile and no longer instruct in little airplanes as I did in the beginning of my career. My C-185 Before Takeoff Checklist, as an example:

While waiting for cylinder heads to reach 225dF prior to takeoff (allowing oil temp rise to green arc).
Flight Instruments
Radios
Engine Instruments (includes runup/prop cycle/suction, etc., if desired)
Trim
Flaps
Fuel

All done in a flow. The last items when taking the runway are:

Landing lights - Flash
Mixture - Set (normally leaned as much as possible until takeoff is imminent)

This may not work for everyone, but after 1,000 hours in my own plane it works well without having to refer to a paper checklist. Frankly, if you can't start, taxi and takeoff in your little spam can using situation awareness without referring to a lengthy and detailed training checklist, you really should stick to simple automobiles with automatic transmissions. Do you really need doors and seat belts on the checklist after obtaining your license? If you do, perhaps you should reconsider what you are about to do with an airplane. I certainly wouldn't ride along in the back seat.

Train your brain and wean yourself off that clunky training checklist, if you can.

:ok:

BTW, 1,000 hours with GAMIjectors and still going strong. WOTLOPSOP :D

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Sorry guys, but gotta put this one back out there...

CAR 138 Pilot to comply with requirements etc of aircraft’s flight manual etc
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) If a flight manual has not been issued for an Australian aircraft and, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, the information and instructions that would otherwise be contained in an aircraft’s flight manual are to be displayed either wholly on a placard, or partly on a placard and partly in another document, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out:
(a) on the placard; or
(b) on the placard or in the other document.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

Legally binding?

[layman]

Capt Sand Dune

I have heard that part of the reason for the longer-than-need-be (and messy) CT4 checklist is to help weed out those who can't memorise a checklist (considered to be of importance for single pilot ops).

Have heard of flights being terminated at the threshold when checklists can't be recalled correctly ... followed by a very quiet cockpit for the return to ramp.

cheers
layman

[Jabawocky]

MIHC
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.

So what do you do when the POH has several INSTRUCTIONS or for that matter PROCEDURES that are different.

No not different as in contradictory, but different as in either OR??

Worse still what do you do when one instruction or procedure is actually contrary to another? this is not rare. If you have never found this, I suggest you have not been diligent enough to date. From my guessing you fly all sorts of things so you of all people should have seen this almost daily.

I think you are falling for the trap of not getting the intent.

Go grab a handfull off POH's and declare, swear on a stack of bibles or whatever takes your fancy and tell us all that this is never the case.

Despite what CAR138 might say, at the end of the day it will eventually come back to the type certificate or STC as applicable, generally but not limited to one issued by the FAA.

Just as has been the case many times before we all get sucked into believing that the POH only says one thing, it does not mean all other things are excluded. And that what is the intent of section 2, the things excluded.

Otherwise, ....no...I am not going there, Trent thinks I am hanging on too tight :mad:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Not trying to stir you up at all, Jaba.

djpil mentioned there was a reg covering compliance and just reminding people that despite the thread seeming to be heading in the direction that a couple of mnemonics will cover everything, there is a requirement to follow the AFM and deviation may mean liabiliy in the event of an accident.:ouch:

Certainly there are manufacturers who have stuffed things up and an informed action (engineering advice may be overkill, but I have gone as far as correspondance with the factory for a procedure that wasn't just contrary, but totally incorrect) to resolve the procedure is certainly the smart thing to undertake.
What actions have you taken for what level of discrepancy? (Not being a smartarse, serious question.) As an example, Aztec flight manuals being amended to remove all reference to crossfeeding as a normal procedure (ie. emergencies only) is an AD.

Back to topic, but wrt the OP, a bit of chair flying costs nothing and familiarity with the aircraft certainly will save the student some money. If they lack the dedication to learn off their own bat, the hip pocket may be a better motivator (exceptions being some daddy fundeds I've seen:rolleyes:). Certainly, there are some unnecessarily extensive publications out there.

A training checklist is necessary for the neophyte learning to fly, but I feel the "do list" form of checklist should be transitioned at some point in the training to more of a flow and check type of procedure as the student gains experience. It seems to remove the disconnect between the student's thought process and involvement in the task and what is really happening.

Absolutely.

[Mach E Avelli]

An example of complying with the AFM's endless checks while abbreviating the checklist can be found with Boeing.
Training manuals and the SOP detail all the checks in a 'flow' pattern. During early training, pilots refer to this expanded information, but soon become competent to do it all from memory.
All the before start checklist says is "cockpit preparation" to which both pilots (having done their respective flows and scans) respond "complete". Job done, law complied with, it's on the CVR, everyone happy.
If pilots were trained in similar fashion on bugsmashers right from the get-go we would have less ATC and traffic conflicts because their heads would be outside the cockpit instead of reading the bloody checklist like it was some kind of Jamie Oliver recipe.
Further, by moving items like fuel selection, flight controls, flaps and trims to the before start phase, distraction and errors before takeoff could be reduced. Having done them in peace and quiet before engine start, there is NO case for having to repeat them during taxi out. A disciplined pilot should only need to do them once and once only.
Just because the boffin who wrote the AFM has these things in some impractical order does not mean that you necessarily have to do them in that order. I will qualify this statement with the rider that common sense needs to be applied. You would not vary an emergency or abnormal procedure without prior consultation with the manufacturer. But for routine checks in your average light aircraft, as long as all items are covered by some suitable means (scan/flow etc), you should have complied with the intent.

[djpil]

Section 2 of the AFM is Limitations so of course the FAA's main interest. The Type Certificate Data Sheets for the airplanes that I fly both identify the applicable Flight Manual - so the whole document is included in the type data.

[flywatcher]

Note the prelanding check for a u-2. Seven items in total, the seventh being landing lights. Sorry haven't figured out how to attach the page.

[flywatcher]

Here is the link, 2-37 and 38.

How To Fly A U-2 Spy Plane (http://jalopnik.com/5974158/how-to-fly-a-u+2-spy-plane)

[Mach E Avelli]

I loved the reassurance that the smoke in the cockpit was nothing to worry about. Makes me feel so much better for having breathed the stuff in Bae 146 s for nearly 10 years.

[the_rookie]

Wonder how much money is wasted whilst holding short of a runway. I waited 15minutes today!! Was busy, but there was slots I could of slipped out in. Better safe then sorry I guess

[TOUCH-AND-GO]

Wonder how much money is wasted whilst holding short of a runway. I waited 15minutes today!! Was busy, but there was slots I could of slipped out in. Better safe then sorry I guess
Heaps, when your departing from busy airfields such as YMMB. Perhaps force yourself in next time or just get on towers nerves and keep calling ready at the holding point! :E

[27/09]

The first time I saw/used a checklist was when I did my instrument rating. Up until then there had been no need to use one.

I wonder that the introduction of checklists at ab initio level can be attributed to the sausage factory schools that are churning out pilots at the minimum hour mark. I'm talking about the schools where the students go directly to an airline. These schools trend to structure their whole training programme around how a large passenger jet is flown, hence the use of checklists in circumstances where a checklist should be unnecessary. Then other schools not wanting to appear being backward have followed suit, a bit of the kings new clothes syndrome.

If you ask me this unnecessary use of checklists breeds a level of dumbness. Bit like a well know factory in the middle to upper North Island where one student taxied along the taxiway blindly following the centre line and drove one wing through the spinning prop arc of an aircraft parked at right angles to the taxiway but forward of the correct parking position. Instead of immediately stopping the engine the pilot of the parked aircraft completed the pre shutdown checks first. Result - one neatly severed 172 wing.

You also have to wonder about the SA of the guy/gal in the taxying aircraft, and why the pilot of the parked aircraft didn't see the other aircraft coming.

[Centaurus]

I know I posted this on an earlier Pprune but I will never get over the experience of taking over a student from a grade 3 instructor and waiting for said student (who had ten hours on the C150) to start the engine. Embarrassed student apologised for not bringing his checklist with him for the session. That's OK I said go ahead and start the engine anyway. Sorry said the student I don't know how to start the engine without the checklist.

When eventually we finished flying he did not know how to shut down the engine without his written checklist.

[27/09]

Centarus

Did said student need a checklist to drive his car?

[Centaurus]

Did said student need a checklist to drive his car?

Good point but this checklist fetish seems to only apply to aeroplanes. I bet if you asked any student learning to fly at flying schools where written lengthy checklists are all the go for Cessna 172's, to go ahead and do his pre-start drills and start the engine and do the after starts - all without reference to a checklist, very few would be able to do this without excessive fumbling and mumbling.

[Compylot]

Did said student need a checklist to drive his car?

Not this old chestnut.

Seriously gentlemen, there is nothing wrong at all for using a checklist to drive your car. I pride myself on being a professional in every aspect of my life and that includes when I am on the road.

Prior to taking my driving test a couple of years ago (Class Charlie), I gave my testing officer a full brief on the expected route, weather conditions and any mechanical issues the vehicle had. Said testing officer was a little surprised when I produced a laminated checklist and proceeded to action items.

In the end though he was most impressed and I passed with flying (excuse the pun!) colours! :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Oh dear:uhoh:

And what do you do when a non normal situation occurs that has no check list:eek:

How about a twin with turbocharged engines and an unexplained loss of MP in one engine? What do you do? Why? And which POH or checklist covers it?

Don't fly twins? Ok same thing, unexplained loss of MP, now what do you do:eek:?


Check lists are not the be all and end all of everything. They are a good start for a newbie to a type in the POH to cover anything specifically different, after that it should not be too hard.

Centaurus :ok:

[Desert185]

Checklists describe which end of the screwdriver to hold. Handy for some folks.

[27/09]

COMPYLOT
Quote:
Did said student need a checklist to drive his car?
Not this old chestnut.

Seriously gentlemen, there is nothing wrong at all for using a checklist to drive your car. I pride myself on being a professional in every aspect of my life and that includes when I am on the road.

Prior to taking my driving test a couple of years ago (Class Charlie), I gave my testing officer a full brief on the expected route, weather conditions and any mechanical issues the vehicle had. Said testing officer was a little surprised when I produced a laminated checklist and proceeded to action items.

In the end though he was most impressed and I passed with flying (excuse the pun!) colours!

Who is a TROLL?

[27/09]

I bet if you asked any student learning to fly at flying schools where written lengthy checklists are all the go for Cessna 172's, to go ahead and do his pre-start drills and start the engine and do the after starts - all without reference to a checklist, very few would be able to do this without excessive fumbling and mumbling.

I bet one of the items on the after start list is OIL PRESSURE. How long has the engine been running for before they even get to this item, something that should have been checked immediately at engine start?

As well as not being required in most cases, one big problem is the checklist is being used as a Do List.

It's all a bit sad really.

[flyinkiwi]

Then you have those who cannot tell when to perform a hot start so proceed with the cold start procedure with a warm engine and sit there cranking the starter over after flooding it... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sometimes it makes you wonder.

[Jabawocky]

Then you have those who cannot tell when to perform a hot start so proceed with the cold start procedure with a warm engine and sit there cranking the starter over after flooding it...

Now that is a whole new thread :}

Surprised how many instructors know bugger all about starting and running a piston engine too. :ooh: .....what hope have the kiddie got?:uhoh:

[LeadSled]

CAR 138 Pilot to comply with requirements etc of aircraft’s flight manual etc
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) If a flight manual has not been issued for an Australian aircraft and, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, the information and instructions that would otherwise be contained in an aircraft’s flight manual are to be displayed either wholly on a placard, or partly on a placard and partly in another document, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out:
(a) on the placard; or
(b) on the placard or in the other document.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

Legally binding?

Folks,

The flight manual referred to here is the Flight Manual (by whatever name) listed, usually by manufacturer part number, in the Type Certification Data Sheet. As is clear to me, the CAR 138 does not differentiate between (say) FAA "certified data" in the AFM and all the "acceptable data" in the AFM.

At least one CASA regional office demands checklists in the FCOM/QRH that differ radically from the checklists in the manufacturer AFM/QRH.

In effect, CASA is requiring that the whole of the expanded checklist be added to the QRH, all as challenge and reply procedures, and in fact that they be used as a "call and do" procedure, not a check list are most people understand it.

Thorn Bird can expand in great detail on the subject.

Tootle pip!!

[scoe]

For those of you ill informed including from my experience many instructors

A check list is just that, it is not meant as a read and do list

In a two Pilot operation each pilot uses triggers during each stage of flight to complete scan flows which are then checked as being complete once the checklist is called for.
Scan Flows can be either pnumonic or geographic around the cockpit depending on the specific operation.

Airlines typically use geographic scan flows and crews are given detailed diagrams to follow so they may learn the correct scan flow typically, when we have commonality of fleet cockpit layout

These scan flows can also be used in single pilot operations ( usually pnumonic) whereby the pilot completes the scan flow and then pulls a written checklist and simply reviews it to confirm all actions are complete.

i am amazed as an instructor with an airline background the number of pilots i see for advanced training that have no idea what they are doing in regard to utilising a valid scan flow check system to (A) prepare an aircraft for departure and (B) utilise the same during all stages of flight.

As I have already said Scan Flows are normally actioned as a result of a trigger or sequence of events i.e. Line up, After take of,f Pre take off, pre descent etc.

The NZ MEIR test requires that a pilot use a checklist and I cant believe that these pilots from day one are taught to use the checklist like a monkey and use it as a read and do list

There are read and do lists but they consist of the abnormal checklist ( phase two) and9 Phase one reconfimation0 following memeory actions

Instructors get the info and get it together please

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Sort of stating the obvious there, scoe.

can't believe these pilots from day one are taught to use the checklist like a monkey and use it as a read and do list

Read and do of normal phases does have its place, and that is at day one. Once they understand and start implementing the procedures themselves, the logical progression is to a checklist.

Were you taught to scan right from your first flight? I wasn't and can pretty well guarantee you will more likely confuse and frustrate the average student by trying to make them scan.

Too much information, but by the time a student approaches GFPT they should understand what they need to achieve and have been able to make the transition to scanning. If not, then the Gr 2 or 1 (or whatever the Kiwi equivalent is) they are flying with should have been doing something about it.

[A37575]

Were you taught to scan right from your first flight? I wasn't and can pretty well guarantee you will more likely confuse and frustrate the average student by trying to make them scan.


Sorry but must disagree from personal experience on that argument. For many decades as a instructor I have taught students who have never flown before, the scan method of before starts etc and it works beautifully. The RAAF have done the same right through from Tiger Moths, Wirraways, CT4's over the many years. Just like you start your car. By using a read and do checklist for ab-initio the students became addicted to the checklist to tell what to do next.

[thorn bird]

Sorry Leadie,
under threat from CASA to my livelihood and that of others I am unable to comment on this forum.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

A37575

Not to say it wouldn't work, but the military does tend to adopt the sink or swim approach (motivation) and with students that have shown some aptitude.
That being said, once the basics of which knob does what are understood, the transition to scanning follows very shortly.

[lionelmandrake]

About checklist use, I think an average flow is better than a great checklist. There are a huge number of checklist items to be checked AFTER the cabin door is closed in our B1900D for example. That's not too great when the cabin temp is hovering near 100 degrees F and the pax are restless to get some AC going. We finally got approved to use a home brewed checklist that got the job done much faster, and in my opinion much safer, and life was better for a while. Still, I knew of a better way to do it, but alas couldn't get a signoff for it from higher ups, so we use the checklist when the big wigs are on board and use CIGAARR when they are not (Controls (box the stick, check and set the flaps), Instruments (gyros, ASI, VSI, mag compass, on both sides), Gas (mains and aux's), Attitude (trims set), Airplane (check all annunciators on the master warning and caution panels), Runup (runup complete and autofeather on), Radios (NAVs/COMMs set, departure briefed including v speeds).
I can get from battery on to the runway, ready to go, in under four minutes without hurrying. Using the approved Beech checklist, it's much longer and very easy to miss items because the damn checklist is just too long and has no flow to it whatsoever.