The rubbish taught by flying instructors.
Grandpa Aerotart
This checking gear down/greens multitudinous times is interesting innit
I used to do it too...when I transitioned from the BN2 to the C402 with close to 2000 hrs fixed undercarriage time I used to check the undercarriage was down about 5 times between selecting it and landing. It appears twice on my Bo checklist and once in the 767 landing checklist.
It's just healthy paranoia when short of experience but don't let it distract you from flying an accurate approach.
Bonanzas have a reputation for being prone to gear up instead of flaps after landing...I suspect this is as much a case of there are more Bonanzas flying than any other se retractable as the reversed gear/flap control layout...but I still wait until I am down to a fairly slow taxiing speed before saying to myself "Flaps indentified and retracted" and positively looking at which control I am moving before moving it. It is also why no one does touch and go training in Bonanzas.
Milt which V bomber had props
I assume you flew Lincolns as well
I used to do it too...when I transitioned from the BN2 to the C402 with close to 2000 hrs fixed undercarriage time I used to check the undercarriage was down about 5 times between selecting it and landing. It appears twice on my Bo checklist and once in the 767 landing checklist.
It's just healthy paranoia when short of experience but don't let it distract you from flying an accurate approach.
Bonanzas have a reputation for being prone to gear up instead of flaps after landing...I suspect this is as much a case of there are more Bonanzas flying than any other se retractable as the reversed gear/flap control layout...but I still wait until I am down to a fairly slow taxiing speed before saying to myself "Flaps indentified and retracted" and positively looking at which control I am moving before moving it. It is also why no one does touch and go training in Bonanzas.
Milt which V bomber had props
I assume you flew Lincolns as well
CMN, I'm sure what you are saying makes great logical sense, as does what other posters are saying.
However, being an old fart, and a late conversion to flying (I wish i had done it thirty years ago now), I have this thing about mortality. I also have this thing about bending aeroplanes, and I have the cheque book stubs to prove it.
I would be the first to agree that there are probably infinitely more sophisticated ways of flying almost any aircraft I currently fly. The issue for me however, and I guess the people who trained me and let me use their aircraft, is that us weekend warriors are made of pretty simple clay.
I would therefore like to suggest that it might be more useful to debate the "ideal" checklists to be memorised, rather than tangle up our miserable heads with the shortcomings of what our instructors taught us,
To put it another way: "Let us miserable PPL's keep to our pathetic belief's
However, being an old fart, and a late conversion to flying (I wish i had done it thirty years ago now), I have this thing about mortality. I also have this thing about bending aeroplanes, and I have the cheque book stubs to prove it.
I would be the first to agree that there are probably infinitely more sophisticated ways of flying almost any aircraft I currently fly. The issue for me however, and I guess the people who trained me and let me use their aircraft, is that us weekend warriors are made of pretty simple clay.
I would therefore like to suggest that it might be more useful to debate the "ideal" checklists to be memorised, rather than tangle up our miserable heads with the shortcomings of what our instructors taught us,
To put it another way: "Let us miserable PPL's keep to our pathetic belief's
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But your point is noted, I will limit it to only 15 times instead of my 200000 times
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CMN, I'm sure what you are saying makes great logical sense, as does what other posters are saying.
However, being an old fart, and a late conversion to flying (I wish i had done it thirty years ago now), I have this thing about mortality. I also have this thing about bending aeroplanes, and I have the cheque book stubs to prove it.
I would be the first to agree that there are probably infinitely more sophisticated ways of flying almost any aircraft I currently fly. The issue for me however, and I guess the people who trained me and let me use their aircraft, is that us weekend warriors are made of pretty simple clay.
I would therefore like to suggest that it might be more useful to debate the "ideal" checklists to be memorised, rather than tangle up our miserable heads with the shortcomings of what our instructors taught us,
To put it another way: "Let us miserable PPL's keep to our pathetic belief's
However, being an old fart, and a late conversion to flying (I wish i had done it thirty years ago now), I have this thing about mortality. I also have this thing about bending aeroplanes, and I have the cheque book stubs to prove it.
I would be the first to agree that there are probably infinitely more sophisticated ways of flying almost any aircraft I currently fly. The issue for me however, and I guess the people who trained me and let me use their aircraft, is that us weekend warriors are made of pretty simple clay.
I would therefore like to suggest that it might be more useful to debate the "ideal" checklists to be memorised, rather than tangle up our miserable heads with the shortcomings of what our instructors taught us,
To put it another way: "Let us miserable PPL's keep to our pathetic belief's
As an old instructor of mine once said, "horses for courses"
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragchute
It's a long time since I last had much to do with a flying school, so I will not speak for them, or their checklists. But I do have experience of operating charter and airwork, and I can tell you that the local CASA man has a lot of say in what you write in the checklist (verbally of course), and you will not get much done if you do not follow it, even if it is not what the maker says, or what the FAA approved. They DO seem to say that some things the FAA approve is "deficient"
I know there are some good people in CASA now, but they are only allowed to tick boxes.
Having two different checklists in an aeroplane IS "deficient"
I have had similar experience with other parts of the ops manual. And it does not matter what you write, every time you get a visit from CASA, they will tell you to re-write part of your ops manual. They seem to suffer from legal paranoia.
Halfmoon
Rolls Royce have stated that best fuel economy is achieved with "high boost and low RPM".
This furphy about not flying with power settings "over square" grew up a long time ago, but I have never seen any justification for it anywhere, and many POH's do list "over square" power settings for normal operation. So do engine makers.
What's in the POH/ is what is sensible. There's no black magic.
Yet another "unique Australian" limitation, which is not justified.
I know there are some good people in CASA now, but they are only allowed to tick boxes.
Having two different checklists in an aeroplane IS "deficient"
I have had similar experience with other parts of the ops manual. And it does not matter what you write, every time you get a visit from CASA, they will tell you to re-write part of your ops manual. They seem to suffer from legal paranoia.
Halfmoon
Rolls Royce have stated that best fuel economy is achieved with "high boost and low RPM".
This furphy about not flying with power settings "over square" grew up a long time ago, but I have never seen any justification for it anywhere, and many POH's do list "over square" power settings for normal operation. So do engine makers.
What's in the POH/ is what is sensible. There's no black magic.
Yet another "unique Australian" limitation, which is not justified.
Grandpa Aerotart
That would kinda assume POHs are infallible.
They are not...technology changes for starters. My Bonanza POH specifically says don't operate lean of Peak EGT when that is clearly not a problem if you have the technology fitted...which wasn't yet invented when my POH was written in 1970...and the 'current' A36 POH is exactly the same part number and word for word identical...37 years later!!!
Certainly in an airline setting you absolutely must follow SOPs...99% of the time...but there are times when they are not sufficient...even the Boeing QRH preamble suggests the contents are only a guide. Too, airline SOPs are merely what the current management desire and they change constantly. New Fleet Check and Training Manager into the office and within weeks he is putting his stamp on things...how HE wants things done.
Literally one week X is an absolute requirement that if you ignore will get you criticised and the next week X is out (and if you keep dong it you'll be criticised) and Y is the current thinking...and will get you in just as much trouble if ignored.
Common sense is important too...just a shame it is so uncommon.
They are not...technology changes for starters. My Bonanza POH specifically says don't operate lean of Peak EGT when that is clearly not a problem if you have the technology fitted...which wasn't yet invented when my POH was written in 1970...and the 'current' A36 POH is exactly the same part number and word for word identical...37 years later!!!
Certainly in an airline setting you absolutely must follow SOPs...99% of the time...but there are times when they are not sufficient...even the Boeing QRH preamble suggests the contents are only a guide. Too, airline SOPs are merely what the current management desire and they change constantly. New Fleet Check and Training Manager into the office and within weeks he is putting his stamp on things...how HE wants things done.
Literally one week X is an absolute requirement that if you ignore will get you criticised and the next week X is out (and if you keep dong it you'll be criticised) and Y is the current thinking...and will get you in just as much trouble if ignored.
Common sense is important too...just a shame it is so uncommon.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy,
You are correct … CASA vary their approach from region to region with little standardization in between. I have also had your experience with ops manual but in fairness to the CASA folk involved they were suggesting alteration of the ops manual to reflect the procedures used. We had streamlined one of our processes to something more workable amd the variation was detected in a surveillance.
Chimbu,
Would not your EGT system involve an STC and an AFM supplement? Over the years with modifications on older aircraft; RNAV systems, payload increase and single point refueling spring to mind, the STC was accompanied by associated checklist items that had to be incorporated into the aeroplane manufactures checklist.
You are correct … CASA vary their approach from region to region with little standardization in between. I have also had your experience with ops manual but in fairness to the CASA folk involved they were suggesting alteration of the ops manual to reflect the procedures used. We had streamlined one of our processes to something more workable amd the variation was detected in a surveillance.
Chimbu,
Would not your EGT system involve an STC and an AFM supplement? Over the years with modifications on older aircraft; RNAV systems, payload increase and single point refueling spring to mind, the STC was accompanied by associated checklist items that had to be incorporated into the aeroplane manufactures checklist.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu chuckles
Sorry for the confusion. The 'other' with props was a Beverley, not a V bomber, which had electric prop control including reverse and auto coarsening.
Following the use of a couple of props in reverse for smooth stopping during taxying it was SOP for us TPs to finally check, before a take off roll, the 4 stupid "Doll's Eyes" which normally indicated props in forward thrust.
Don't know whether the squadron check lists included checking props in forward for take off.
Early Beverleys props had plastic electric brush housings which had a propensity to breaking allowing the electrics to interact and go haywire. A common fault was uncommanded feathering and to remain in reverse without essential indication. Hence the odd take off roll with one prop in reverse. The roll had to be aborted in one hell of a hurry!
Yes flew Lincolns but they did not have reverse although I discovered there was a way to reverse a Lincoln using a combination of one wheel brake and lots of power on an outer.
Sorry for the confusion. The 'other' with props was a Beverley, not a V bomber, which had electric prop control including reverse and auto coarsening.
Following the use of a couple of props in reverse for smooth stopping during taxying it was SOP for us TPs to finally check, before a take off roll, the 4 stupid "Doll's Eyes" which normally indicated props in forward thrust.
Don't know whether the squadron check lists included checking props in forward for take off.
Early Beverleys props had plastic electric brush housings which had a propensity to breaking allowing the electrics to interact and go haywire. A common fault was uncommanded feathering and to remain in reverse without essential indication. Hence the odd take off roll with one prop in reverse. The roll had to be aborted in one hell of a hurry!
Yes flew Lincolns but they did not have reverse although I discovered there was a way to reverse a Lincoln using a combination of one wheel brake and lots of power on an outer.
Last edited by Milt; 7th Dec 2006 at 23:16.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flying by ROTE
I reckon everybodys full of a little rubbish,instructors to pilots.....been known to stack a little cow poo-poo myself
.....and even invent some amazing aerodynamic cluster-crap that would impress the doomsday boys on this site.......would agree to only teaching what the aircraft and pilot are capable of...the rest will come later
Did a stint with JAL for a year,as an instructor in there 747 programme ,was hired to fly the Falcon 50 and do cross-countrys etc etc.....had the bloody thing set up like the 747(classic) 3 pilot crew with all the callouts,white gloves...you know how it goes.....
any way these blokes had degrees up the ying yang,7 yr jobs,masters ,PHds,etc.......hired them off the street and they all learned to fly by ROTE!!!....MARVELLOUS INDEED!!! because when the ****e hit the fan....it was.......KIWI-SUN....WHUT WE DO ....be thankful boys,....some places have more "rubbish" than others....PB
.....and even invent some amazing aerodynamic cluster-crap that would impress the doomsday boys on this site.......would agree to only teaching what the aircraft and pilot are capable of...the rest will come laterDid a stint with JAL for a year,as an instructor in there 747 programme ,was hired to fly the Falcon 50 and do cross-countrys etc etc.....had the bloody thing set up like the 747(classic) 3 pilot crew with all the callouts,white gloves...you know how it goes.....
any way these blokes had degrees up the ying yang,7 yr jobs,masters ,PHds,etc.......hired them off the street and they all learned to fly by ROTE!!!....MARVELLOUS INDEED!!! because when the ****e hit the fan....it was.......KIWI-SUN....WHUT WE DO
....be thankful boys,....some places have more "rubbish" than others....PB
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My flight instructor has given me a checklist, but she has told me that she expects me to know it, and that after a while she is going to take it off me. Its just there while I try and get used to flying. (I only have about 4.3 hours.)
Last edited by WilliamOK; 8th Dec 2006 at 02:33. Reason: Trigger happy.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checklists and Instructors
Checklists are what you will use in the airlines. But if you work for a company that uses something else eg flows or memonics then use that. Always use what ever the Chief Pilot wants you to. Thats who you work for and thats who will fire you if you don't. If something is inadequate in the system that your company or flying school is using notify the appropriate people and explain why it is wrong objectively. Because you do it differently isn't a good reason to change something and standardisation of operating procedures is vital for company ops especially when you move to 2 crew. I have used flows checklists do lists and memonics throughout my career and personally think that well thought out flows supplemented by checklists are the way to go. But i'm happy to do whatever the company wants as told as long as there are wheels to land on and it's not safety critical.
As for instructors teaching rubbish well yes some don't know better but don't tell them they are wrong before a test wait till the paperwork is sent to CASA then explain with appropriate references to your cause. ps don't expect any popularity prizes for fault finding either there are some delicate egos
in aviation.
As for instructors teaching rubbish well yes some don't know better but don't tell them they are wrong before a test wait till the paperwork is sent to CASA then explain with appropriate references to your cause. ps don't expect any popularity prizes for fault finding either there are some delicate egos
in aviation.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think teaching pilots from day one to check the gear (whether it is bolted down or not) is a good idea. If he then plays musical aeroplanes he is at least going to get that right.
Or should he have, in his navbag, a set of scans and checkists for every different type of aeroplane he flies?
Or should he have, in his navbag, a set of scans and checkists for every different type of aeroplane he flies?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right
Pod is right. Reciting a checklist achieves nothing unless the action is actually performed and checked.
For undercarriage the habbit which will help is "when you see a runway ahead-check wheels". in a manner appropriate for your aircraft.(looking out the window etc)
For undercarriage the habbit which will help is "when you see a runway ahead-check wheels". in a manner appropriate for your aircraft.(looking out the window etc)
Thread Starter
What are the examiners looking for at this level of experience?
My beef with the instructing industry is that personal opinions by their very repetition become perceived facts and the hapless student is forced to swallow that regurgitated rubbish. If he then stays in the game and in turn can't get a job and is forced to pay for an instructors course, his brain is addled with duff gen which in turn he passes on to his students as facts.
Back in another life I ate more carrots than a bloody rabbit because during the war eating carrots was supposed to make your eye-sight better at night.
It wasn't until I gew up a bit and did some research (good old Google) and found out it was all horsesh..t, and in fact was a ploy in the early part of the war to con the German bomber pilots who were getting shot down not because of the carrot enhanced eyesight of British night fighter pilots, but because of new radar which could pick up the German aircraft and the RAF wanted to keep the radar as a secret for as long as possible.
Now that's how myths are propagated and explains why pilots will believe anything their grade 3 instructor will tell them - and grade ones too.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My beef with the instructing industry is that personal opinions by their very repetition become perceived facts and the hapless student is forced to swallow that regurgitated rubbish. If he then stays in the game and in turn can't get a job and is forced to pay for an instructors course, his brain is addled with duff gen which in turn he passes on to his students as facts.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey all... I have flicked through alot of this posts and would like to say the following....
I have recently started my own business and as a result have recently hired my first handful of pilots from various flight schools.
What I have experienced is utter nonsense...
I have found some of the following trends..
They teach on finals, attitude for airspeed and throttle for rate of decent!! Stupidest thing Ive ever heard
A general disregard for commercial ops and passenger comfort... lack of proffesionalism with passenger breifing..
Extremely poor top of decent point selection, sometimes nothing more than just eyeball it..
Poor engine handling
Lack of regard for prop damage on dirt strips
poor spacial orientation and understanding of traffic for seperation
Very poor take off safety breifs and departure breifs
Poor landing technique, from aimpoint selection
There are a few extras but Im sure you get the point. Basically, flying schools these days are designed to churn students through. The people doing the teaching are often greenbacks themselves offered employment straight out of training with no actual commercial experience... the blind leading the blind.
I think the problems leads far deeper than the aircraft types and new systems in modern aircraft. If the people doing the teaching are themselves lacking in any real commercial experience, then what hope does any new pilot have??
I havnt had a new pilot yet, that didnt make me want to personally call their old flying schools and give them a good telling off.. Sending these guys out to commercial flying with no commercial skills or consideration.
Its an absolute joke. They ought to have a damned good look at themsleves.
I have recently started my own business and as a result have recently hired my first handful of pilots from various flight schools.
What I have experienced is utter nonsense...
I have found some of the following trends..
They teach on finals, attitude for airspeed and throttle for rate of decent!! Stupidest thing Ive ever heard
A general disregard for commercial ops and passenger comfort... lack of proffesionalism with passenger breifing..
Extremely poor top of decent point selection, sometimes nothing more than just eyeball it..
Poor engine handling
Lack of regard for prop damage on dirt strips
poor spacial orientation and understanding of traffic for seperation
Very poor take off safety breifs and departure breifs
Poor landing technique, from aimpoint selection
There are a few extras but Im sure you get the point. Basically, flying schools these days are designed to churn students through. The people doing the teaching are often greenbacks themselves offered employment straight out of training with no actual commercial experience... the blind leading the blind.
I think the problems leads far deeper than the aircraft types and new systems in modern aircraft. If the people doing the teaching are themselves lacking in any real commercial experience, then what hope does any new pilot have??
I havnt had a new pilot yet, that didnt make me want to personally call their old flying schools and give them a good telling off.. Sending these guys out to commercial flying with no commercial skills or consideration.
Its an absolute joke. They ought to have a damned good look at themsleves.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
milehighsociety,
Churning through students is indeed the cause. Most of the more prominent flying schools now have large airline contracts. Many of these contracts are from airlines based in nations with pilot shortages, forcing the recruitment of any nationals who even raise an eyebrow at the idea of flogging around in brand new boeing or airbus equipment. The result is often a large proportion of substandard cadets who can barely speak a word of english. The schools have jumped at the chance to make big bucks without properly considering the task at hand. The fact that the cadet recruitment for many of these airlines is hardly an indepth process is a result of what we don't yet have in Oz, the pilot shortage.
To bring most of these students to a satisfactory (just) standard, requires the teaching of extremely basic flying. That is, get the plane on the ground, without too much damage, and you'll get your ppl (funny how more often than not, testing is done internally... conflict of interest?). There is a difference between flying nicely and flying safely (just). The former requires finesse. How can you polish their flying if they can't fathom the basics? This intern leads to an instructional culture of flying to minimum licence standard. The pilot nationals go home with the minimums and often end up in the right seat for the remainder of their careers with a cranky old expat enjoying the power trip... I'm touching on another issue altogether here!
Churning through students is indeed the cause. Most of the more prominent flying schools now have large airline contracts. Many of these contracts are from airlines based in nations with pilot shortages, forcing the recruitment of any nationals who even raise an eyebrow at the idea of flogging around in brand new boeing or airbus equipment. The result is often a large proportion of substandard cadets who can barely speak a word of english. The schools have jumped at the chance to make big bucks without properly considering the task at hand. The fact that the cadet recruitment for many of these airlines is hardly an indepth process is a result of what we don't yet have in Oz, the pilot shortage.
To bring most of these students to a satisfactory (just) standard, requires the teaching of extremely basic flying. That is, get the plane on the ground, without too much damage, and you'll get your ppl (funny how more often than not, testing is done internally... conflict of interest?). There is a difference between flying nicely and flying safely (just). The former requires finesse. How can you polish their flying if they can't fathom the basics? This intern leads to an instructional culture of flying to minimum licence standard. The pilot nationals go home with the minimums and often end up in the right seat for the remainder of their careers with a cranky old expat enjoying the power trip... I'm touching on another issue altogether here!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good stuff
There is some very valuable information on this thread. It should continue and discuss, among other things.
What IS a checklist? What is it's purpose?
What is a "to do" list, and what is it's purpose?
Should they be the same as what is in the POH/Flight manual? Why?
What about habbits. How do they affect our behaviour? Good or bad?
How can we influence habbits, so they assist us?
What about the "feel" of your aeroplane? (they are all female aren't they?) Can this help?
Do we have enough resources to handle a very complex checklist?
Is the checklist we are using designed to help us. Is it designed to protect others who are not in the aeroplane? Is it designed to make legal processes work if something goes wrong?
How well does the checklist work?
To illustrate some of this.
.
I spent a long time flyng Chieftains and we had a 104 item list to get through before takeoff. I think this was a "to do list" and was not really a checklist at all. It also had some "debatable" items like "rotate at VMCA, not below"
Habbits/ feel
I once had to deliver a C310 we had sold, to it's new owner, who also owned a Baron. I had to fly with him, and endorse him in the C310. During this process I noticed that he was trying to syncronise the props using the wrong levers. Barons ARE different, and have throttles in the middle. He was using the HABBITS he had learned in the Baron, in the C310, and it did not work. This is not usually a serious problem, as people seem to learn how to cope with the different power levers fairly quickly, and it's only a nuisance. For emergencies, Beechcraft say "push all six levers fully forward" That simplifies things.
But, too often we see a Baron, or a bonanza on it's belly, because the pilot retracted the gear instead of the flaps, after landing. (the "squat switch" often does not seem to activate until the aeroplane has almost stopped.)
It does not seem to happen with other retractables. (but it could)
But the Barons and Bonanzas are different. They are magnificent aeroplanes, but they have the gear switch and flap switch in what we could call the opposite position to most other aircraft. Not a problem if you only fly Beechcraft, but if you have learned your habbits in other aircraft then those habbits could cause you to retract the gear instead of the flaps. It's easy to do.(no I have not done it) These aeroplanes ARE different, so we need to learn to IDENTIFY the flap lever before activating it. Not just SAY identified, but to Feel it, and Look at it.(Wait till you Do have time). And if possible, wait till you are off the runway, and the squat switch has activated.
It amazes me that this keeps happening, and there do not seem to be any cautions written, or taught. We just let it keep happening. And pay lip service to safety. We seem to be reluctant to acknowledge and deal with a known, fixable problem. I wonder why. Are we too busy writing manuals?
If we feel it, and develope good habbits it will happen less. They are good aeroplanes.
Getting back to the chieftains. One organisation's ops amnual had only one power setting listed, and required pilots to run the engines 100 rich of peak when cruising. They burned lots more fuel than necessary. One senior pilot went to USA and did the flight safety course for chieftains, and they queried him as to why those setting were used. They were different from the settings recomended. So he set up a meeting with Lycoming engineers, and they told him the same.
But nothing changed. The manual was written by people who did not fly the aeroplanes, and did not live where the flying was done.
Pilots were often called on to do long flights, so they used power settings from the makers manuals and got the job done.
The ops manual was not appropriate. It protected the writers, but put extra pressure on the pilots.
Our manuals and checklists need a reality check.
What IS a checklist? What is it's purpose?
What is a "to do" list, and what is it's purpose?
Should they be the same as what is in the POH/Flight manual? Why?
What about habbits. How do they affect our behaviour? Good or bad?
How can we influence habbits, so they assist us?
What about the "feel" of your aeroplane? (they are all female aren't they?) Can this help?
Do we have enough resources to handle a very complex checklist?
Is the checklist we are using designed to help us. Is it designed to protect others who are not in the aeroplane? Is it designed to make legal processes work if something goes wrong?
How well does the checklist work?
To illustrate some of this.
.
I spent a long time flyng Chieftains and we had a 104 item list to get through before takeoff. I think this was a "to do list" and was not really a checklist at all. It also had some "debatable" items like "rotate at VMCA, not below"
Habbits/ feel
I once had to deliver a C310 we had sold, to it's new owner, who also owned a Baron. I had to fly with him, and endorse him in the C310. During this process I noticed that he was trying to syncronise the props using the wrong levers. Barons ARE different, and have throttles in the middle. He was using the HABBITS he had learned in the Baron, in the C310, and it did not work. This is not usually a serious problem, as people seem to learn how to cope with the different power levers fairly quickly, and it's only a nuisance. For emergencies, Beechcraft say "push all six levers fully forward" That simplifies things.
But, too often we see a Baron, or a bonanza on it's belly, because the pilot retracted the gear instead of the flaps, after landing. (the "squat switch" often does not seem to activate until the aeroplane has almost stopped.)
It does not seem to happen with other retractables. (but it could)
But the Barons and Bonanzas are different. They are magnificent aeroplanes, but they have the gear switch and flap switch in what we could call the opposite position to most other aircraft. Not a problem if you only fly Beechcraft, but if you have learned your habbits in other aircraft then those habbits could cause you to retract the gear instead of the flaps. It's easy to do.(no I have not done it) These aeroplanes ARE different, so we need to learn to IDENTIFY the flap lever before activating it. Not just SAY identified, but to Feel it, and Look at it.(Wait till you Do have time). And if possible, wait till you are off the runway, and the squat switch has activated.
It amazes me that this keeps happening, and there do not seem to be any cautions written, or taught. We just let it keep happening. And pay lip service to safety. We seem to be reluctant to acknowledge and deal with a known, fixable problem. I wonder why. Are we too busy writing manuals?
If we feel it, and develope good habbits it will happen less. They are good aeroplanes.
Getting back to the chieftains. One organisation's ops amnual had only one power setting listed, and required pilots to run the engines 100 rich of peak when cruising. They burned lots more fuel than necessary. One senior pilot went to USA and did the flight safety course for chieftains, and they queried him as to why those setting were used. They were different from the settings recomended. So he set up a meeting with Lycoming engineers, and they told him the same.
But nothing changed. The manual was written by people who did not fly the aeroplanes, and did not live where the flying was done.
Pilots were often called on to do long flights, so they used power settings from the makers manuals and got the job done.
The ops manual was not appropriate. It protected the writers, but put extra pressure on the pilots.
Our manuals and checklists need a reality check.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They teach on finals, attitude for airspeed and throttle for rate of decent!! Stupidest thing Ive ever heard