Own checklist

[slr737]

We are trying to create a more structured checklist for our ATO when flying the DA42. Something which is more airline oriented with flows than the Diamond checklist.

Is there written somewhere that we can not use our own checklist as long as it encompassed all that is required for each phase of flight.

Someone told me EASA has written a new regulation requiring us to use the manufacturer checklist however i cannot find it.

thx

[what next]

Someone told me EASA has written a new regulation requiring us to use the manufacturer checklist however i cannot find it.

Obviously the people in charge at the FTO where I instruct as well as in the company for which I fly haven't found that regulation either. We happily use our selfmade A5-size abbreviated checklists with the approval of our authority. The latest revision at work was approved only a couple of months ago, so the people within our authority could not find that EASA regulation either.
If everyone would be forced to use manufacturer checklists, the first thing to change would be the 5 minute time span between asking for start up and being ready for taxi...

[Parson]

I do wonder sometimes if whoever writes checklists has ever sat in an aircraft......

[BigEndBob]

Write your own, just make sure it includes whatever is on the usually crappy manufacturer checklist as a butt covering exercise.

I created a universal checklist for our Cessna and Warrior.
Everything including emergencies covered on two sided A4, folded along it's length.

[slr737]

Thanks for the answers.

That's what I tough. Maybe someone told that because he was too lazy too do it or it's one of the new rules the belgian CAA has created.....

I'll create our own checklist with all the required items.

[fireflybob]

Most of the commercially produced checklists I've come across are full of garbage!

[chrisbl]

Yes Part-NCO which came into force in the UK on 25/8/16

AMC1 NCO.GEN.105(c) Pilot-in-command responsibilities and authority
CHECKLISTS
(a) The pilot-in-command should use the latest checklists provided by the manufacturer.
(b) If checks conducted prior to take-off are suspended at any point, the pilot-in-command should re-start them from a safe point prior to the interruption.

[TheOddOne]

...'should', not 'must'.

TOO

[BillieBob]

...'should', not 'must'.Not quite how EU regulation works. If there is only one published Acceptable Means of Compliance with a regulatory requirement then it is the only way that you can comply. You could always submit an Alternative Means of Compliance to the competent authority if you wish to comply in another way (good luck with that).

AMCs may be 'soft' law but they're still the law, for now.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The reality of that however, is yes, you can use a locally generated checklist - but it MUST contain the minimum requirements of the manufacturer's checklist. You can change formats and add additional material all you wish.

G

[Albus_Dumbledore]

Sorry Genghis, I don't agree with that statement entirely. There are plenty of operators who have their own checklists that do not follow the manufacturers. What exactly are the minimum requirements of a checklist? Its either the manufacturers normal procedures or it isn't.

Under EASA, "expect" and"should" is used to indicate a strong obligation.
"May" is used to indicate discretion.
"Shall" and "must" are used to indicate a mandatory requirement.

AD

[Cobalt]

Not quite how EU regulation works. If there is only one published Acceptable Means of Compliance with a regulatory requirement then it is the only way that you can comply. You could always submit an Alternative Means of Compliance to the competent authority if you wish to comply in another way (good luck with that).

AMCs may be 'soft' law but they're still the law, for now.
Not true for Part-NCO. NCO.GEN.101 allows each operator to use alternate means of compliance without any additional approval or even notification.

This is in marked contrast to for example part ARO (ARO.GEN.120), the equivalent for commercial ops, which specifies that AMCs need to be approved by the competent authority.

A non-commercial operator of complex aircraft (Part-NCC) can use home-brew AMCs, but has to declare these to the competent authority - this is in part ORO.GEN.120 and ORO.DEC.100, not in Part-NCC, strangely enough.

So in summary - under which circumstances AMCs need to be notified and/or approved, and by whom, depends on the exact regulation. In most cases they need approval; especially AMCs in Part-FCL can only be made by the competent authority and have to be approved by EASA, IIRC.

[Cobalt]

So just to make this relevant to the thread:

Own checklists would be an AMC.

Part-NCO - Cook your own checklist. It's your funeral, after all...
Part-NCC - Cook your own checklist and send it to the authority.
Part-ARO - Cook your own checklist and get it approved by the authority.

[Albus_Dumbledore]

Almost cobalt:

Part-NCO - Cook your own checklist, if anything happens, the CAA might ask you some questions.
Part-NCC - Cook your own checklist, and declare that you're happy with it to the authority, under a self-declaration. If anything happens, your so called "SMS" should take care of it, otherwise the CAA might take a look, and ask you questions.
Part-ARO - Cook your own checklist, and send it to the authority to get it approved. "SMS" and management should deal with anything that arises, otherwise the CAA ask questions based on audits.