altering checklists

[Dufo]

To what extent can the original manufacturer's checklists be altered?
For example changing sequence of some items or changing names (i.e. from electrical systems to electrics)

Any reference to ICAO doc (if such guidance exists) etc. would be helpful :ok:

[LookingForAJob]

Are you talking about a checklist for a Cessna 150 or for an aircraft operated under an AOC?

[Dufo]

part 25 plane under aoc

[Tee Emm]

To what extent can the original manufacturer's checklists be altered

Be careful. I don't know about the smaller aircraft types but checklists for larger types such as jet transports have been carefully crafted by the manufacturer taking into account (for example) recommendations from previous accidents where checklist design was a factor.

There are a host of other factors to be considered before fiddling with the original manufacturer's checklist items simply to suit the personal preference of company management pilots.

[blind pew]

I know of four instances where checklists (proceedures) have been changed.
The first resulted in Britain's worst avaition disaster.
The second resulted in our N reg 747s being banned from US airspace.
The third you can read about in a CAA incident report where the crew put out a Mayday.
The forth you can read about in a CAA accident report.
A no brainer IMHO.
Generally those that build the aircraft know more about it than those that fly it.

[FerrypilotDK]

I would very much like to have some references to the items mentioned. Always interested in learning new things and these disasters you mention, at least contributed to, by a change in checklists would be interesting reading!

Now to a large Biz jet checklist that we have altered-

1. Checklist calls for Nav lights on, before APU start. When first dealing with this change, I would send the FO outside to confirm that the lights were on. As they are not on the battery bus, they are of course, NOT on. This for especially the "read and do" mentalities. So why bother to change the position on the checklist? Because the generator coming on line seems to have a surge, that quickly burns out the bulbs. By throwing the switch after APU gen on, we have trebled bulb life.

2. The manufacturer, who seemingly knows everything according to your theory, "forgot" to include "Parking brake on" in the before engine start section. We added it.

3. The flight control tests are in the after engine start checklist. So we wait until the pax are on and the doors closed, engines started, BEFORE we check the flight controls? Nope....moved to systems checks, after APU start. Then if we have a problem, we have at least an hour to have maintenance look at it. If there is a real problem, then we can put in another aircraft or cancel a flight with good notice, not with bags and pax and catering etc on board.

4. 10th Stage bleed valves fail open, so if we select them open as per checklist, then start the engines, we will never exercise them, and have no idea if the valves work. By moving the switch push to after engine start, we can check the operation of the valves.

These are just 4 I thought of right away, after reading the doom and gloom opinion that the manufacturer knows best, don't mess. We have made more and I think it is important that any checklist be based on the AFM, but in a group of experienced pilots, thought through and created to be a useable checklist. The manufacturer has a lot of items in the taxi checklist, and we have moved them all to before taxi except brakes and TRs. Why would anyone want to be reading a checklist and doing systems checking while taxi-ing is beyond me.

So I would say that carefully reading the AFM and then creating a checklist that works is better than "just" taking their word for it. Our particular manufacturer does not actually provide checklists anymore, other than the multiple page version in the QRH. So any one page, laminated checklist MUST be constructed and approved by the operator.

[wiggy]

Interesting.

For many many years our ( large european AOC) outfit designed and published it's own checklists, usually after due consultation with the manufacturers.

We have very recently gone over, or are in the process of going over to only using the manufacturer's checklists and procedures.

One of the reasons given for the change was that the operator could be held liable if there was an incident or accident where an operator's designed checklist was deemed to be a contributory factor.

[blind pew]

Sorry ferry pilot..thought you were dealing with big aeroplanes:)
References...noise abatement proceedure Staines disaster June 1972.
No reference as kept secret outside company, Boeing and authorities...although at the time we were changing engines and pylons together using fork lift trucks which led to the Chicago DC10 crash
Big airlines flight ex lax which landed in Manchester...jettison pumps used for cross feeding instead of main pumps.
Big airlines 777 when the "on ground emergency" checklist had been changed which led to fuel shut offs being left open.
good luck...sure there are still some ill thought out proceedures.

[FerrypilotDK]

The Staines disaster brought into a discussion of altering checklists from the manufacturer's to the operator's?

Failure to maintain airspeed, retraction of flaps and droops at too low an airspeed, and over-riding stall protection systems don't quite seem to be checklist items...

[Piltdown Man]

...you can do pretty much as you please. The big problem is the official approval which may not be forthcoming from your national regulator. They will probably contact the manufacturer and unless they OK the changes, they won't give you permission. It's important not to confuse logic with liability. Inventing your own checklists is just asking for trouble.

PM

[wiggy]

It's important not to confuse logic with liability.

:ok:

Nicely put. Sadly that just about sums aviation up these days.

[777AV8R]

Good post and maybe I can help illuminate things.

EU OPS requires AOC holders to develop their Operations Manuals, of which the most relevant to this discussion is Part A and Part B.

Part B deals with the checklist issue. The operator can generally accept the manufacturer's checklist for their own use however; the checklist cannot be less restrictive than what the manufacturer has developed. i.e. The Operator can place "Cabin Attendants.......Advise", in the Before Takeoff Checklist, if that is not in the manufacturer's checklist, but not remove 'Flaps.....Set' if the manufacturer's checklist contains the item. There must also be a reference to the use of checklists in Part A, thus both Part A and B become further related.

To maintain a Quality loop, the Checklists must have a serial number or reference to the Part B. This then makes the Checklist, a Controlled Document. When the Authority receives the AOC documents for review during the course of its review, these references and checklists are assessed and the manuals are then approved.

The same goes for MELs.

What is NOT legal is checklists and 'aide-memoires' that pilot's and crew 'make up' and use in the daily course of our work on the flight deck. Even though some of them are excellent, each of these documents need to be 'controlled' by the Quality department.

The reason for the foregoing is that in case of an incident or accident, the investigation will undoubtedly swing around to cockpit procedures. If it is found that the crew were using or there were uncontrolled documents found in the cockpit, the legal aspects become very interesting.

[Yan104]

Hello guys,

I just raise this interesting debate on changing cheks -lists of manufacturers , for what I understood, at the initiative of the operating companies . I may know on this purpose that it exists in some major airlines a manual operating sent to pilots, who introduced specifications in terms of use of the aircraft, for example speed and approach paths to reduce noise, or braking methods in touch on the runway. Similarly, there are instructions for the management of the engine thrust at different flight levels to optimize fuel consumption .
But all these specifications have an economic purpose , they aim to reduce the cost of aircraft maintenance by providing its sensitive elements, strongly and regularly tested , and better manage fuel consumption which the expenditure has continues to increase , or avoid penalties for non -compliance in level of Noise Decibels ( Ndb ) in effect on a given airport. It does not affect the basic techniques defined by the manufacturer, according to his logic of building of the aircraft, both in the organization of cockpit controls , and their effects on the mechanical equipements and avionics of the plane.

I think a change of a checklist , the order of its items , can not be done without a close cooperation with the manufacturer , and must be validated by the authorities such as the FAA or EASA . Improved ergonomics of the controls in the cockpit, an updated of softwares and logical protections of automation (with the Airbus concept Fly -By -Wire ) may be requested by crews to the manufacturer, but it’s ONLY HIM that decide what modifications must be do, and he must train crews on them after.