C172 and check lists
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: up and down
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C172 and check lists
Hello guys!
Do you teach to use check lists in all phases, like approach and final or you use check list only for start up and before take off and the rest by memory?!
I had a conversation where some instructors says that since the C172 is a simple aircraft they don't teach to use ck list in final to students since they might loose loc or glide; instead I suggest to use it to don't forget anything.
What do you think?
Do you teach to use check lists in all phases, like approach and final or you use check list only for start up and before take off and the rest by memory?!
I had a conversation where some instructors says that since the C172 is a simple aircraft they don't teach to use ck list in final to students since they might loose loc or glide; instead I suggest to use it to don't forget anything.
What do you think?
I have my own checklist when I instruct. It is designed with both "do list" sections and "checklist" sections.
Do lists (ie read the action and then do it, read the next item and do it etc) are
-Prestart
-Taxi
-Pretakeoff
-Cruise
-Descent and approach
-Shutdown
Checklists (ie do all the actions as a flow and then when complete and when able review the checklist to "check" you have not forgotten anything) are
-After start
-Runup
-prelanding
-After landing
The idea is that when the aircraft is stopped or in cruise flight you can do the head down "do" lists
When it is important that you be looking out the windshield then you do the "check" lists
I have also arranged all checks so that they flow in the same a logical pattern around the instrument panel.
I personally do not believe in pure memory checks as I think the check should be specific to the aircraft.
Do lists (ie read the action and then do it, read the next item and do it etc) are
-Prestart
-Taxi
-Pretakeoff
-Cruise
-Descent and approach
-Shutdown
Checklists (ie do all the actions as a flow and then when complete and when able review the checklist to "check" you have not forgotten anything) are
-After start
-Runup
-prelanding
-After landing
The idea is that when the aircraft is stopped or in cruise flight you can do the head down "do" lists
When it is important that you be looking out the windshield then you do the "check" lists
I have also arranged all checks so that they flow in the same a logical pattern around the instrument panel.
I personally do not believe in pure memory checks as I think the check should be specific to the aircraft.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never get my students getting a checklist out in flight, all airborne checks are done from memory. If the student wants to, he can do ground checks from memory too, they never miss anything. A C172 is not the most complicated machine to operate.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dark Side of The Moon
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion it depends on where the student is heading to...
For a future professional pilot it is a real good idea to learn using the checklists on a simple airplane from the very beginning as this is what they will be doing for the rest of their careers... A PPL only pilot who will never fly anything but C172 can get away with memory items, however ideal solution in my opinion is take-off and landing checklists placarded somewhere on the dashboard or on the sun-visor, like we used to have in the old pipers.
But how do you know he/she'll never fly anything bigger than C172?
I also really like teaching do-flows supplemented by check-lists like we do in transport aviation and it works.
OM
For a future professional pilot it is a real good idea to learn using the checklists on a simple airplane from the very beginning as this is what they will be doing for the rest of their careers... A PPL only pilot who will never fly anything but C172 can get away with memory items, however ideal solution in my opinion is take-off and landing checklists placarded somewhere on the dashboard or on the sun-visor, like we used to have in the old pipers.
But how do you know he/she'll never fly anything bigger than C172?
I also really like teaching do-flows supplemented by check-lists like we do in transport aviation and it works.
OM
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't matter what they are going on to do. Teach them how to fly the current machine properly.
Its one of the reasons why we have so many instructors teaching persudo airline ops to PPL's they think adding half the gusts, 3 deg approaches is the way your ment to fly light aircraft.
It does them no favours teaching the airline style when they are not flying an airliner.
Its one of the reasons why we have so many instructors teaching persudo airline ops to PPL's they think adding half the gusts, 3 deg approaches is the way your ment to fly light aircraft.
It does them no favours teaching the airline style when they are not flying an airliner.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dark Side of The Moon
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are not going to crash a 172 flying sudo-airline style, but their old habits/shortcuts can get them into trouble once they progress to a more advanced machine. My personal opinion of course.
For example not being apple to plan a glide properly and relying on side-slipping every time to land on the target.
3 degrees approaches have nothing to do with flying a heavy aircraft, it is just basic IFR and a good exercise as well. (we also fly steep approaches to certain airports on certain jets)
Back on the subject, teaching the students to perform checklists/drills at a certain stages of the flight, especially in the emergency situations, when we really need them, can be best done from the very beginning, so they are used to this kind of workload and planning, and don't think of checklists as something optional, only applicable when time permits.
On other hand, keep the checklists to the point, so that they CAN be performed in the emergency situation as well (that is not two pages, but just a few most crucial simple items)
For example not being apple to plan a glide properly and relying on side-slipping every time to land on the target.
3 degrees approaches have nothing to do with flying a heavy aircraft, it is just basic IFR and a good exercise as well. (we also fly steep approaches to certain airports on certain jets)
Back on the subject, teaching the students to perform checklists/drills at a certain stages of the flight, especially in the emergency situations, when we really need them, can be best done from the very beginning, so they are used to this kind of workload and planning, and don't think of checklists as something optional, only applicable when time permits.
On other hand, keep the checklists to the point, so that they CAN be performed in the emergency situation as well (that is not two pages, but just a few most crucial simple items)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an airline, if you have an engine failure/fire, once any memory items are complete the pilot not flying would get the checklist and run any remaining checks, including attempted restart if appropriate.
In a C172, you don't have this option, are you expecting a student to refer to a checklist even in emergency ops? If they are able to memorise emergency items then why not the landing checks? why not after landing checks? why not all the checks?
In a C172, you don't have this option, are you expecting a student to refer to a checklist even in emergency ops? If they are able to memorise emergency items then why not the landing checks? why not after landing checks? why not all the checks?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they do, they end up stuffing the nose in, getting blown off the side of runway because they carry to much speed in the approach.
They also don't have a hope in hell of making the field if the donk goes because they are on a shallow approach.
If they are that talent limited they can't make the change they shouldn't going pro anyway.
I use checklists everyday at work I don't use them in SEP's I will do things in a light aircraft that I wouldn't do in a CAT aircraft. But then again I can fly both properly.
All it does is mean is that the whole of the GA scene is posioned by persudo airline ops which is a significant safety concern.
Edited to add if you are teaching them for a MPL crack on because as such your not teaching them to fly either privately or commercially SEP aircraft. Any other license or qual your not doing your job properly because the student isn't being taught properly how to fly an SEP.
They also don't have a hope in hell of making the field if the donk goes because they are on a shallow approach.
If they are that talent limited they can't make the change they shouldn't going pro anyway.
I use checklists everyday at work I don't use them in SEP's I will do things in a light aircraft that I wouldn't do in a CAT aircraft. But then again I can fly both properly.
All it does is mean is that the whole of the GA scene is posioned by persudo airline ops which is a significant safety concern.
Edited to add if you are teaching them for a MPL crack on because as such your not teaching them to fly either privately or commercially SEP aircraft. Any other license or qual your not doing your job properly because the student isn't being taught properly how to fly an SEP.
Last edited by mad_jock; 17th Dec 2011 at 10:49.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEP instructor here.
At the beginning, it is useful to provide a list of checks that need to be completed whilst a student familiarises himself with an aircraft. After a while, I wouldn't expect to see a student pilot doing a walk-round with a checklist in his hands; he should know what to look for.
Inside the aircraft is much the same. A list to follow whilst he learns how to switch the machine on but a well composed checklist (together with an ergonomically designed aircraft) will quickly encourage the pilot to use some kind of flow.
With my examiner's hat on, it is clear that we do not expect the use of a checklist, we expect pilots to complete all necessary checks. A few well thought-out mnemonics is more than enough in this basic environment.
As for the "teach them in the manner they will be airline pilots" argument is concerned - tosh. The vast majority of student pilots where I fly (and I suspect most other flying clubs) have no intention of doing anything other than fly for pleasure. This includes the 78 year old who first solo'd last week! If people want to learn how to fly airlines from the outset, there are enough schools out there who will happily take your money, let you wear a shirt with epaulettes and teach multi-crew techniques in spades.
At the beginning, it is useful to provide a list of checks that need to be completed whilst a student familiarises himself with an aircraft. After a while, I wouldn't expect to see a student pilot doing a walk-round with a checklist in his hands; he should know what to look for.
Inside the aircraft is much the same. A list to follow whilst he learns how to switch the machine on but a well composed checklist (together with an ergonomically designed aircraft) will quickly encourage the pilot to use some kind of flow.
With my examiner's hat on, it is clear that we do not expect the use of a checklist, we expect pilots to complete all necessary checks. A few well thought-out mnemonics is more than enough in this basic environment.
As for the "teach them in the manner they will be airline pilots" argument is concerned - tosh. The vast majority of student pilots where I fly (and I suspect most other flying clubs) have no intention of doing anything other than fly for pleasure. This includes the 78 year old who first solo'd last week! If people want to learn how to fly airlines from the outset, there are enough schools out there who will happily take your money, let you wear a shirt with epaulettes and teach multi-crew techniques in spades.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sideslipping
For example not being apple to plan a glide properly and relying on side-slipping every time to land on the target.
Moderator
I'm not an instructor.
I suggest it is unwise to allow newer pilots to consider it acceptable to not use a written checklist at all phases of flight. That said, of course, a lot of us do not in some circumstances. This becomes a "do a I say, not as I do" type situation.
After yearly 3000 hours flying the C 150 I have owned for 25 years, no, I do not refer to the paper checklist for it - at all. I'm sure I can remember all of the important steps of getting it into the air, and safely back. But, this lack of thoroughness on my part does show up as a shortcoming, and my failing. Naturally, when I fly my friend's 172, I similarly don't bother, so I tend to frequently forget two items which are different on that plane than mine - fuel pump, and cowl flaps. These are not fatal oversights, but certainly I am lining up a Swiss cheese hole by forgetting the fuel pump for takeoff.
In my effort to ward off complacency, I am going back to paper checklists for all phases of flight, for aircraft I do not fly as regularly. (the Tiger Moth does not seem to have one!). When I fly the Caravan, I step through every checklist item ever time. During my checkout, I was required to commit just a few checklist emergency items to memory, the rest, I'm expected to pick up the paper.
When I do a walkaround check of the SW300, or MD500, I will carry the walkaround checklist, or the actual flight manual around with me during the inspection.
Little things will catch you out, and can become very expensive mistakes. The Siai Marchetti I have been flying requires that the fuel selector and propeller/fuel control lever both be found in the "off" position, prior to attempting a start, or an additional prestart step is required to prevent expensive engine damage. Luckily, while referring to the prestart checklist, I noticed that someone had moved the propeller lever, and therefore that special prestart procedure was required. Had I not, I would have possibly been responsible for an engine hot section inspection.
If you're flying an amphibian with me aboard, I won't be letting you land, until you have spoken one the checklist items: "wheels are down for landing on land" or "wheels are up for landing on water", and make the appropriate visual check. EVERY amphibian landing I make will be preceded with those words out loud.
Yes, most pilots can get away with "remembering" the contents of a C172, and other similar type checklist, but to teach that it is acceptable to do so, it to teach complacency!
I suggest it is unwise to allow newer pilots to consider it acceptable to not use a written checklist at all phases of flight. That said, of course, a lot of us do not in some circumstances. This becomes a "do a I say, not as I do" type situation.
After yearly 3000 hours flying the C 150 I have owned for 25 years, no, I do not refer to the paper checklist for it - at all. I'm sure I can remember all of the important steps of getting it into the air, and safely back. But, this lack of thoroughness on my part does show up as a shortcoming, and my failing. Naturally, when I fly my friend's 172, I similarly don't bother, so I tend to frequently forget two items which are different on that plane than mine - fuel pump, and cowl flaps. These are not fatal oversights, but certainly I am lining up a Swiss cheese hole by forgetting the fuel pump for takeoff.
In my effort to ward off complacency, I am going back to paper checklists for all phases of flight, for aircraft I do not fly as regularly. (the Tiger Moth does not seem to have one!). When I fly the Caravan, I step through every checklist item ever time. During my checkout, I was required to commit just a few checklist emergency items to memory, the rest, I'm expected to pick up the paper.
When I do a walkaround check of the SW300, or MD500, I will carry the walkaround checklist, or the actual flight manual around with me during the inspection.
Little things will catch you out, and can become very expensive mistakes. The Siai Marchetti I have been flying requires that the fuel selector and propeller/fuel control lever both be found in the "off" position, prior to attempting a start, or an additional prestart step is required to prevent expensive engine damage. Luckily, while referring to the prestart checklist, I noticed that someone had moved the propeller lever, and therefore that special prestart procedure was required. Had I not, I would have possibly been responsible for an engine hot section inspection.
If you're flying an amphibian with me aboard, I won't be letting you land, until you have spoken one the checklist items: "wheels are down for landing on land" or "wheels are up for landing on water", and make the appropriate visual check. EVERY amphibian landing I make will be preceded with those words out loud.
Yes, most pilots can get away with "remembering" the contents of a C172, and other similar type checklist, but to teach that it is acceptable to do so, it to teach complacency!
Broadly speaking, I agree with you DAR.
The checklist does not have to be printed - it can be from memory it can (and often sensibly is) be from a menomic. BUT, it has to be correct and consistent.
My personal system is sort of modular - I have a folder of bits that I pick from (generic checklist, type information, avionics checks....) to build my kneeboard for a trip. What I've tended to do now I have a little instructional experience is to hand my version to a student (in reality a qualified pilot I'm refreshing or training onto a type), a copy of my system as applicable to that aeroplane and type of flying and invite them to do one of:
(a) use it, or
(b) use an alternative commercial or club checklist appropriate to type and role, or
(c) come up with their own checklist or system, and use that consistently.
I seem to end up with a mixture, but if they consistently get everything right in an appropriate order, I'm happy.
What can't be tolerated is no systematic method of doing checks, or checks done in a manner that doesn't allow me to confirm what they're doing (which so far when I challenge them has always shown they're being sloppy and missing stuff). What also can't be tolerated however is somebody who can't handle key actions (departure checks, approach checks, engine fire drills...) without referring to their printed checklist - some stuff needs to be in memory.
The majority of "grow up" pilots do tend to slip into using mnemonics or memory in the air and a printed checklist on the ground, but having some form of printed checklist available in the air in case of memory failure. I count myself into that category, along with most people I'd be happy flying in the back behind.
G
The checklist does not have to be printed - it can be from memory it can (and often sensibly is) be from a menomic. BUT, it has to be correct and consistent.
My personal system is sort of modular - I have a folder of bits that I pick from (generic checklist, type information, avionics checks....) to build my kneeboard for a trip. What I've tended to do now I have a little instructional experience is to hand my version to a student (in reality a qualified pilot I'm refreshing or training onto a type), a copy of my system as applicable to that aeroplane and type of flying and invite them to do one of:
(a) use it, or
(b) use an alternative commercial or club checklist appropriate to type and role, or
(c) come up with their own checklist or system, and use that consistently.
I seem to end up with a mixture, but if they consistently get everything right in an appropriate order, I'm happy.
What can't be tolerated is no systematic method of doing checks, or checks done in a manner that doesn't allow me to confirm what they're doing (which so far when I challenge them has always shown they're being sloppy and missing stuff). What also can't be tolerated however is somebody who can't handle key actions (departure checks, approach checks, engine fire drills...) without referring to their printed checklist - some stuff needs to be in memory.
The majority of "grow up" pilots do tend to slip into using mnemonics or memory in the air and a printed checklist on the ground, but having some form of printed checklist available in the air in case of memory failure. I count myself into that category, along with most people I'd be happy flying in the back behind.
G
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a conversation where some instructors says that since the C172 is a simple aircraft they don't teach to use ck list in final to students since they might loose loc or glide; instead I suggest to use it to don't forget anything.
You know MJ for someone who thinks he is a modern instructor can't believe you are in the " must be able to glide to the runway approach camp" that went out with Tiger Moths!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What final approach checks are there in a C172? I can't think of any.
Just fly the aircraft down the approach in the correct configuration, power as required to achieve the desired speed, maybe alter carb heat, and make a radio call. What checks are there?
Just fly the aircraft down the approach in the correct configuration, power as required to achieve the desired speed, maybe alter carb heat, and make a radio call. What checks are there?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where have I stated that?, there is though don't put yourself in an increased risk position.
Sometimes there is an acceptable risk because of the gain ie instrument training or instrument approach in IMC. The learning of instrument flying and the added safety of the instrument approach in IMC outways not doing a normal SEP approach which is steeper than 3 deg.
Alot of airports these days have significant built up areas with problematic places to do a forced landing in the under shoot. Flying a 4 mile 3 deg approach for no other reason than I want to pretend to be an airline pilot isn't showing good PIC risk assement.
Sometimes there is an acceptable risk because of the gain ie instrument training or instrument approach in IMC. The learning of instrument flying and the added safety of the instrument approach in IMC outways not doing a normal SEP approach which is steeper than 3 deg.
Alot of airports these days have significant built up areas with problematic places to do a forced landing in the under shoot. Flying a 4 mile 3 deg approach for no other reason than I want to pretend to be an airline pilot isn't showing good PIC risk assement.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a witness to today's Leicester incident, I suggest we leave it out as its not relevant.
As far as circuits are concerned I am firmly in the camp that you should be able to glide the runway from the circuit unless local restrictions defer this. It is also what we look for when conducting a flight test, so dont think it went out with the tiger moth.......
As far as circuits are concerned I am firmly in the camp that you should be able to glide the runway from the circuit unless local restrictions defer this. It is also what we look for when conducting a flight test, so dont think it went out with the tiger moth.......
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not meaning to cause trouble but...
quote from MJ:
I tend to teach slightly steeper above the 3 degree approach. Most light singles glide around 5 degrees, so surely anywhere between 2 and 5 should be acceptable? I certainly don't teach students to follow the PAPIs or ILS, as you will end up landing deep into the runway. As long as you are teaching the visual aspect and touchdown somewhere close to the beginning of the runway, does the steepness of the approach matter that much? I've seen perfectly well flown 2, 3, 4 and 5 degree approaches, if it's a viual approach it shouldn't matter (taking any obstacles into account).
Where have I stated that?,
They also don't have a hope in hell of making the field if the donk goes because they are on a shallow approach.
Moderator
Without wanting to take a run at Bose (particularly now), the memory checklist (and I use it too) would not, on its own, meet Canadian requirements: (my bold)
602.60 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft, other than an ultra-light aeroplane, unless the following operational and emergency equipment is carried on board:
(a) a checklist or placards that enable the aircraft to be operated in accordance with the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual, aircraft operating manual, pilot operating handbook or any equivalent document provided by the manufacturer;
I have a paper one in my plane, and specifically used it on the flight for my commercial flight test in my plane. Otherwise, it's at home in it's little pocket. But...
The fact that those of us with X000 hours on type don't refer to a paper checklist should not lead new pilots to the same casual approach. It is a poor habit to form, and lines up Swiss cheese holes, when you start flying unfamiliar types. If I were checking out a pilot on a new type, and that pilot would not use the paper checklist, I'd be hard pressed to send them on their way, until I believed that they knew that they really should use it.
Aircraft can have unique systems, and perhaps ONLY the checklist is going to guide the pilot through the correct procedures. On an electro hydraulic RG, do you confirm that the gear is selected down, before you turn on the master? If you don't, you're lining up a Swiss cheese hole again. If the weight on wheels switch is U/S, the plane might be sitting on it's belly moments later....
This, to me is one of the those subjects where, if you have to ask, you already know the answer. If there as any doubt about using the paper checklist - you have to. In my opinion, there is zero excuse for an instructor not setting a good example to a student at all times, by using and insisting on the use of, the checklist, at all phases of flight. If the student cannot manage the normal procedures checklist, along with flying, navigating, and communication duties, without exceeding their workload capacity, they should not be solo.
Years ago, while checking out a Cherokee pilot on his new Arrow, he was too self assured to need the checklist. I opened the throttle to full power, part way down final, and instructed an overshoot. He might have remebered to lower the gear, but he might not have either. He learned the value of a checklist after that.
This is one of those subjects where I feel that we as individuals, members of a group (PPRuNe) and participants in an industry, have a higher responsibility than just to defend that our personal, casual way of doing things is good enough. It is our duty to set a good example for those who will be the next generation of our industry - even you newer instructors! It's one thing to get to be complacent, it's another thing to start out that way....
602.60 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft, other than an ultra-light aeroplane, unless the following operational and emergency equipment is carried on board:
(a) a checklist or placards that enable the aircraft to be operated in accordance with the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual, aircraft operating manual, pilot operating handbook or any equivalent document provided by the manufacturer;
I have a paper one in my plane, and specifically used it on the flight for my commercial flight test in my plane. Otherwise, it's at home in it's little pocket. But...
The fact that those of us with X000 hours on type don't refer to a paper checklist should not lead new pilots to the same casual approach. It is a poor habit to form, and lines up Swiss cheese holes, when you start flying unfamiliar types. If I were checking out a pilot on a new type, and that pilot would not use the paper checklist, I'd be hard pressed to send them on their way, until I believed that they knew that they really should use it.
Aircraft can have unique systems, and perhaps ONLY the checklist is going to guide the pilot through the correct procedures. On an electro hydraulic RG, do you confirm that the gear is selected down, before you turn on the master? If you don't, you're lining up a Swiss cheese hole again. If the weight on wheels switch is U/S, the plane might be sitting on it's belly moments later....
This, to me is one of the those subjects where, if you have to ask, you already know the answer. If there as any doubt about using the paper checklist - you have to. In my opinion, there is zero excuse for an instructor not setting a good example to a student at all times, by using and insisting on the use of, the checklist, at all phases of flight. If the student cannot manage the normal procedures checklist, along with flying, navigating, and communication duties, without exceeding their workload capacity, they should not be solo.
Years ago, while checking out a Cherokee pilot on his new Arrow, he was too self assured to need the checklist. I opened the throttle to full power, part way down final, and instructed an overshoot. He might have remebered to lower the gear, but he might not have either. He learned the value of a checklist after that.
This is one of those subjects where I feel that we as individuals, members of a group (PPRuNe) and participants in an industry, have a higher responsibility than just to defend that our personal, casual way of doing things is good enough. It is our duty to set a good example for those who will be the next generation of our industry - even you newer instructors! It's one thing to get to be complacent, it's another thing to start out that way....
Moderator
What final approach checks are there in a C172? I can't think of any
Ive never heard of anyone using a checklist on final approach in a SE aircraft!