Cessna 172 POH/Pilot Operating Handbook

[graziani]

The POH in C172 K ( just an example) on board approved by authority is incomplete, the Emergency procedure is missing …Why? How is it possible?
I checked the C182 M ,it is the same? https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/shiner.gif
only the new verions have the complete POH…..
Why the doesnt manufactor update the POH on the old versions?
how is it possible?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Hadn't you better ask Cessna?

But I'd not be surprised if the "Emergency" section was not required to be in the POH at the time of publication, at least in the USA, and nobody cared about the rest of the world.

[Pilot DAR]

It was somewhere in around 1974 when Cessna and many other GA manufacturers adopted what was known as the "GAMA" (General Aviation Manufacturer's Association) format for the flight manuals which are familial with the newer types. Prior to that, the formats and contents of POH/Owner's manuals was very diverse. In some cases, the POH was excellent, sometimes, because that aircraft was sold to military clients, who demanded it, or sparse, because the military buyer said "don't bother, we write our own, and train to it.". But industry and the FAA saw the need to standardize it all, so the GAMA format evolved. Coincident with that, came the FAR Part 23.1581 which required that a Flight Manual be "furnished" with the pane, and therefore the expectation that the Flight Manual be "approved". So, in the front of Cessna POH's since 1975 or so, there is a statement that it is the approved Flight Manual. Cessna POH's are very good, if the information is there, it's good.

On the other hand, Some Piper airplanes I have flight tested (meaning I had to delve into the "Flight Manual" to prepare the testing, actually have both an "Owner's Manual" and a separate document "FAA Approved Flight Manual". The Approved Flight Manual provides the minimum required information to be approved. It bears an FAA approval signature, and is very basic - you'd miss it if you weren't looking. The glossy Owner's Manual seems to have been written by the sales department, rather than flight test/certification departments. The information provided, though comprehensive, is in some cases (performance) optimistic (I couldn't flight test to it!).

For my experience, the older GS planes (1960's and older) often have a POH which is more "care for the plane" than all of the details and checklists as to how to fly it. Flight training back then seemed to drill in basic flying skills for simple airplanes well, though missed the ancillary systems training/navigation/radio work/avionics which are necessary now. So yes, the older POH's seem different and sparse compared to today's Flight Manuals. Add to that, thousands of "lessons learned" along the way, of what the pilot should have been told about the plane to prevent an accident, and resulting lawsuit. So fill the new format FAA approved Flight Manual with all kinds of warnings, which many of us were trained to, and consider common sense - now it's written for us!

The checklist I have to use when preparing an approved Flight Manual Supplement is really good, and my lessons learned lead me to really try to consider what pilots should be able to read to find. I was once ferrying a Lake Amphibian a long distance. I had filled the main tank, and both wing auxiliary tanks. I'd flown Lakes lots, but never with the uncommon wing tanks. Off I go, it's a beautiful day. after an hour and some, the main tank is going down a little, no hurry, but I should plan to get the aux fuel flowing. Hmmm, how? I look around the cockpit for a selector for that - nothing. I look everywhere for a placard about how to use the wing fuel - nothing. I pull out the flight manual, and read it cover to cover - nothing. How to I get that fuel into the engine? After another hour, this was beginning to affect my decision that I might have to land enroute fill the main tank. So, I use the phone a friend option, and call the boss - Lake Amphibian expert. He tells me that the wing fuel flows automatically when the main fuel goes below a certain level, no pilot action required to use that fuel. Okay, but gee, couldn't they say so in the flight manual, and a placard near the fuel valve, where I would see it when I looked? "Yeah, they should have done that!"

And read the supplements! I once had to test fly a brand new Found Bushhawk on skis (it was the ski installation I was approving). I read through the flight manual - as far as the beginning of the supplements (I saw avionics). I noted speeds and other information for my flight test cards. I got into the plane, and the speeds on the airspeed indicator were rather different from those I had noted from the Transport Canada approved Flight Manual - Hmmm.... I flew the flights with imperfect speeds. After the flying, I had occasion to leaf further into the supplements section of Flight Manual - back behind all the avionics supplements, was, as a supplement, a whole other Flight Manual - for the airplane when equipped with STC'd fowler flaps. Hmmm... the plane I just flew has folwer flaps (as opposed to plain flaps, common to the design). That flight manual supplement had the speeds for the plane I had just flown. So I complained to Transport Canada, that the information actually applicable to the configuration airplane I had flow was hidden in the back as a supplement, rather than replacing the non applicable flight manual. My fault for not reading the entire flight manual and all supplements, but the approval system had not made it easy for a pilot either!

Most older airplanes have STC'd mods on them now, and many are accompanied by Flight Manual Supplements, some great, some rather sparse and wanting. But it is the pilot's responsibility to be familiar with (at least aware of) all of that information. This is particularly critical with multi modified planes (like bigger engine + STOL kit + gross weight increase + AoA system - as one example). Each modification may come with a Flight Manual Supplement - but, probably not one of those FMS was written to consider the other mods on that particular plane. And worse, it is uncommon for the multi mod more advanced GA airplanes to be common to flight schools and instructors, so the pilot new to these modified types (particularly the older Cessnas with "basic POH's) has a challenge getting type competent training for a check out.

The manufacturers are not going to go back to reissue older POH's to be Approved Flight Manuals, that would be an expensive certification exercise, with legal implications and zero cost recovery, so you have to work with what you have, including any FMS's, and seek out extra training from someone who knows that plane!

[wrench1]

only the new verions have the complete POH…..Why the doesnt manufactor update the POH on the old versions? how is it possible?
It was somewhere in around 1974
The FAA didn’t mandate approved aircraft flight manuals (AFM) for all small aircraft until March 1979. Only those produced after that date were required to comply with that regulation. Now if the aircraft was certified under Part 23 prior to 1979 then there was a separate requirement. But most SE aircraft like the 172 were certified under CAR 3 which did not require emergency procedures and only required aircraft limitations and performance data to be listed in a manual. And if you go back far enough there are some older aircraft where the limitations and performance info is only found in the Aircraft Specifications/TCDS.

Technically, there is no regulatory requirement to update previous POH or AFM to the new standard.

Once the 1979 mandate hit most OEMs switched to the GAMA Spec 1, as mentioned above, which has an emergency procedure section, but there is no separate FAA requirement to use that format. However, by following the GAMA spec it made AFM approval very easy.

[graziani]

wrench1 (https://www.pprune.org/members/154885-wrench1) pilotDar. Tks very much, I appeciate your explanation…I didnt know about it…….the only sadness that a manufacter doen’t publish a specific manual for old plane even without certification…it is very bad to leave the pilot alone doing themselves the remake of the missing POH:=:\

[Pilot DAR]

When I was being trained in the turbine DC-3, I commented on how little is in the flight manual. My mentor explained that back when one bought a brand new DC-3, there were exactly two types of clients: Airline, and military. both of those types of organizations are very "in house training" oriented, so there was no burning requirement to product comprehensive flight manuals. But go and buy a brand new Caravan from Cessna, a less complex airplane than a turbine DC-3, and you'll get a 500 page flight manual! 'Cause Cessna knows that you can just turn up with X million dollars, take the keys and fly away - Cessna hopes you read the flight manual. But if you don't or have an accident, they can point to their flight manual to show the judge that they told you how to do/not do that!

Similarly, the Piper Cubs, Taylorcrafts, Aeroncas, and Cessna 120/140/170 were introduced into a GA world with really experienced and skill instructors - ex WW2. Those guys could fly, and teach! So like the DC-3 scenario, a decade or two went by with GA flying not really sufferer much for not having comprehensive flight manuals. But then a new generation of slightly less well trained pilots (my generation) needed a little more "book" to go back to, so POHs and Owner's Manuals became a good idea. Then late in that generation, with a bursting busy GA industry, more accidents, more lawsuits, and more need to explain everything! Now, current GA types do have everything explained in an FAA approved Flight Manual, so all that went before seems bleak! And here am I now, issuing STC's for modifications to 60+ year old airplanes, and having to explain the regulator that there is no flight manual for me to draft and FMS for!

[megan]

The C172L has an emergency section, you could adapt that graziani

http://winnebagoflyingclub.com/files/7770G_POH.pdf

[graziani]

Tks megan / Pilot Dar

I am perplexed and amazed.....I can't believe that aircraft manufacturers with engineers and test pilots leave their aircraft to the management of their own manuals to private pilots ...I understand the whole certification process but add a chapter to the original manual with the words "just for information" it would be a minimal thing worthy of a serious company ... that's all

[rigpiggy]

Problem is some lawyer, due to some schlep who piled it in due to his own incompetence. Would use this as an "indication that you knew you had a defective product!". As opposed to we are trying to mitigate some Dumas from hurting himself due to a lower level of knowledge.

[graziani]

I understand all of this…..but I m asking! Where is AOPA ? Where is FAA, ? Where is EASA ? Where is Any authority around the world? Just to remember………it is just crazy to have an official POH C172 K with NO Emergency cklist….tks:=

[wrench1]

I understand all of this…..but I m asking! Where is AOPA ? Where is FAA, ? Where is EASA ? Where is Any authority around the world? Just to remember………it is just crazy to have an official POH C172 K with NO Emergency cklist….tks:=
Not crazy, simply following the existing rules. While it may seem a simple task to add an Emergency Procedure section an existing AFM or POH that did not require one, it requires more than a simple revision. So if it is important for you to have an Emergency Procedures section for your aircraft you have several options: petition the FAA or EASA to initiate an NPRM or NPA to add those sections, or, contact Cessna and request an Emergency section for your specific aircraft, or simply develop your own as others have done for decades when needed.

[graziani]

Options: I wiil do the last one,simply develop my own POH….

what about a petition? It is so frustrating…..looks like If we are goino to ask how much is important the water for the humans:bored:Any way It is better to close the speech:bored:
thank all of you

[Pilot DAR]

what about a petition?

When you look at it big picture, how many C172_ through 172K's are involved in accidents because of there was no emergency procedures section in their pre GAMA format POH's? I imagine very few... What's Cessna's legal exposure for not providing that information retroactively, very small. What's Cessna's cost to produce revised POH's (and have them all FAA approved) for all f their legacy airplanes? Very costly! Who pays for that? If Cessna offered C172K owners a revised GAMA format FAA approved flight manual for $5000 a copy, would anyone buy them?

I have drafted many FMS for approval to meet the present design requirements for certification - including revised emergency procedures sections. Those documents cost thousands of dollars to produce and approve. I did the performance flight test data gathering in a modified Cessna Grand Caravan (about 12 hours of flying) so that a Flight Test Engineer could produce a revised performance section for an FMS for the plane. On top of the cost my 12 hours of data gathering flying (some of which was rather risky), there was a cost of $16,700 to produce some of the pages for the FMS (I did the others). I twin turboprop I work with was STC approved for a gross weight increase. FMS revision only, no changes to the plane. The STC holder told me that some of the FMS pages cost $50,000 each to produce. They sell the STC (so the FMS) for $30,000 per airplane.

As for emergency procedures sections of POH's, sure, for complex airplanes. For the airplanes for which there is no POH/Owner's manual (and long before flight manuals), what you should do during emergency has no checklist, nor really procedures, it's just what you were trained - all memory items. Back in the day, pilots were expected to understand their airplane well enough to perform the require emergency procedures adequately from memory - 'cause they were few and simple. Sure, airplanes are more complex, and manufacturers way more legal aware, but no own is pointing to old POH's as a source of accidents. maintenance procedures and inspections are being updated for these planes, AD"s are issued for possible structural deficiencies, and in rare cases, some legacy types effectively grounded by AD because there is too much risk of structural failure, particularly for the very old types. But the lack of an emergency procedures section is not attracting attention with the manufacturer nor the FAA. I deal with this regularly, explaining to the authority why there is no need for an FMS, when there is no manual to supplement!

If you feel that you need a reminder about the emergency procedures for a 172K, good on you for being aware and prepared. But, for what can be written, you can commit it to memory - because when sparks fly, or everything gets quiet, you'll just be doing what you should be doing, rather than looking for a POH, and leafing through it to find the procedure. Devote your energy to understanding the airplane systems and actions necessary to operate or isolate them, and you'll be just fine. By the time you're flying a type for which the emergency procedures really do need to be provided in a POH/Flight Manual - they will be! And, just for reference, during my initial type training on the Grand Caravan, a plane with a 536 page Flight Manual (most of which I had read) the Chief Training Pilot turned to me in cruise flight, and said: "I want you to remember FBI, can you remember that?". "Yes, I can...". "FBI stands for "Fuel/Boost [pumps]/Ignition", as long as you can remember that in an emergency, you'll figure everything else out just fine". He put the responsibility upon me for understanding the plane, it's systems, and what's important when. He would never criticize me for not referring to the flight manual if I needed to, but, he would criticize me for stopping being a pilot during an emergency to look up in the flight manual what to do now....

Similarly, I offer to you, forget pursuing a revised POH for a 50 year old very simple plane, and join those of us who just accept they were certified the way they are, and we work with what we have. When I have done advanced type training on complex singles, if I see that the pilot is looking for a reference during the urgent phases of a practice emergency, instead of having a good (not perfect, just good) plan for a simulated emergency response, I'll say something like: "Oh, turbulence, you just dropped that checklist on the floor, and can't reach it now, go on from memory...", or, "your Ipad battery just went flat at the worst moment - this one - I'll take that now, continue without...", or "that annunciation system just stopped working, continue without...", and we continue training that way. So far, so good....

[graziani]

thanks Pilot DAR, as I said, I perfectly understood the bureaucratic lengthiness of standardizing and certifying the manuals again.....but I think it is ethically immoral on the part of large manufacturers such as cessna, piper, vulcanair, (GAMA ) and above all by the authorities who allow slightly dated aircraft to be deprived of important information for the pilots ... it would be enough to insert an additional chapter with a " nice " discharge of liability and well written in evidence that the pilot will be solely responsible in the apply these procedures....since what was added after certification is a kind concession.....I said everything .I can understand the means that a flight school has with experienced examiners and instructors who can safely do a recomposition of old POH manuals...but the scenario could be worse: a newly certified PPL pilot who enthusiastically buys an aircraft and he finds himself alone with a meager POH .... it is ethically and deontologically incorrect…...tks to all of you………

[TheOddOne]

It would probably be cheaper for Cessna to buy up all the old airframes and scrap them. Manufacturers have been known to do that. Do we really want that? There are some perfectly good 50-yr old airframes out there that will go on indefinitely. Don't forget, certainly in the case of the PA28, Piper didn't expect it to last more than 10 years.

Our checklist for our 50-yr old PA28 includes an Emergency section. The most common emergency we train for is the total loss of engine power, the training in the UK is known as PFL or Practice Forced Landing, exercise 16. Having established at the best glide speed and chosen a landing place, we then go through determining the failure cause. I teach working from left to right across the cockpit, which should work in most light aircraft. I expect students to follow this 'workflow' whilst flying the aircraft. I had one student the other day whip out the checklist and start reading from it. I cancelled the exercise and we went back to have a discussion on single pilot operations and how all airborne drills need to be done from memory. Oh dear, bad mark for me for not teaching it properly; I thought I'd briefed pre-flight adequately, obviously not.
TOO
ps. Every day is a school day. I've had to look up what 'deontologically' means! A bit tautological in the above context...

[MrAverage]

TOO
I've not been at the Club since Saturday so I can't check our POH collection. However, I seem to remember that all UK POHs have Emergency sections. Plus some other addenda, all mandated by the CAA?

There's absolutely no point in my looking up the two long words you mention, I'd never be able to remember them (let alone what they mean)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just looking at my collection of old UK airworthiness standards.

BCAR Section K, issue 7, from 1992, shows a clear requirement for an emergency procedures section in the Flight Manual. (Chapter K7-5) However, when you burrow down into the detail, the only emergencies listed are engine failure, flap failure, and emergency descent for high altitude aircraft. Anything else was at the discretion of the applicant to add in.

And that section isn't in the 1966 issue 3 of Section K.

So, basically I think that the UK had no great record of mandating emergency sections in manuals, if they were there, it'll mostly be because companies (or military customers) decided it was a good idea to have them.

JAR-23, which came in in circa the mid 90s I think, and was based upon the US FAR-23, had a moderately robust section on what should be in the POH, including emergencies.


So, basically, if the UK did better than the USA, it was local good practice I think, not the regulators. That's up to JAR in the late 90s, and the convergence with the FAA.

G

[wrench1]

Just looking at my collection of old UK airworthiness standards.
Curious. Any chance there's a JAR / BCAR rule in your collection similar to the FAR 21.5 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-21/subpart-A/section-21.5) that required all aircraft not type-certificated with a flight manual to provide one after March 1979? This is the rule that brought the GAMA formatted AFMs into play for any new aircraft (to include CAR 3 aircraft) complete with an emergency section. The Part 23 AFM requirement only caught new TC or amended TC aircraft as you noted. I seem to recall, possibly incorrectly, there being a similar JAR rule requiring AFMs for new aircraft in the same time frame but as a result of discussions from FAR Part 91.9(b)(1) (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-A/section-91.9).

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is I think, but my collection is incomplete. The relevant UK standard for light aeroplanes is BCAR Section K, which I have *some* editions of, but not all. Issue 3 from 1966 does not appear to require a manual, issue 7 from 1992 does. I don't have the intermediate standards so can't say at what point in between manuals became a requirement. However you reference FAR21, not FAR23, and that gave me a clue...

I do have a 1973 Bulldog `120 AFM that says in the front of it...

"This handbook incorporates the CAA-approved Flight Manual, Document No. SH.3.3 and complies with British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, Section A, General Information and Procedure, Chapter A6-7, Crew Manuals."

Section A isn't used much now, but is broadly equivalent in scope to FAR-21, so that tells us that by 1973 there was something equivalent to your FAR 21.5.

Going back further I have a 1964 Flight Manual for an Auster J5, which says it supercedes and cancels an earlier version issued in 1958. The wording in the front of that is quite different...

"No entries or endorsements may be made on this Flight Manual except in the manner and by the persons authorised for that purpose by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.", it also says a few pages in...

"This flight manual is published by The Civil Aviation Authority, Airworthiness Division, Brabazon House, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 1SQ".

So that suggests that BCAR Section A requirement, equivalent to the FAR21 requirement, came into being somewhere between 1964 and 1973, but that there was probably an earlier requirement that *also* required an AFM. However, the change may have been from the document being issued by the CAA as part of the approval, to being issued by the manufacturer, and approved by the CAA.

JAR definitely required flight manuals, with emergency sections, from the start - "the start" being the mid 1990s.

The 1964 POH for the Auster contains nothing I'd recognise as an emergencies section, either in the main document, or the subsidiary "pilot's notes". The 1973 Bulldog AFM very definitely contains a section called "Emergency Procedures" broken down into the usual things you'd expect to see. This makes me wonder if the change from CAA issued to company issued, co-incided with the introduction of a mandatory emergency procedures section of the AFM?

G

[wrench1]

The 1973 Bulldog AFM very definitely contains a section called "Emergency Procedures" broken down into the usual things you'd expect to see. This makes me wonder if the change from CAA issued to company issued, co-incided with the introduction of a mandatory emergency procedures section of the AFM?
Interesting. Wasn’t the Bulldog mainly an off-the-shelf military trainer? I wonder if that requirement played a part in your 1973 AFM emergency section? I’ve seen similar here but the civilian and military manuals for the same aircraft are separate documents.

For example, the older Piper Super Cub owners manuals have no emergency section but the L21A manual of the same vintage did have the section. Same for the mid-60s 172 (F,G), civil books no but the T-41A manual yes. Even the old PT-17 manuals from the 40s had an emergency/special ops section.

I do recall when the 1979 Part 21 AFM mandate hit it took some time for everyone get up to speed with TCDS revisions or simply getting the word out to the GA public. And it still causes the odd-question today as this thread.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The Bulldog was a derivative of the earlier Beagle Pup, although I don't have a Pup manual to compare. There are definitely totally different manuals for the military and civilian aircraft however, as I have both. The RAF manual has a completely different structure (and included a comprehensive, but differently constructed "emergency handling" section).. I assume, but don't know, that the CAA Bulldog manual was derived from the Beagle Pup manual. The RAF manual clearly uses exactly the same structure as all other aircrew manuals of the period.

G