Mixtures, Masters, Mags and Cowl Flaps Not applicable. WTF?

[RadioSaigon]

Originally Posted by Ixixly

...don't know what aircraft type/s you're going to be flying when you finish your training...

Wouldn't it be fairer to expect your training organization to train you appropriately for what you have strapped to your arse now and form a good solid basis upon which later training in more complex types will build???

Far too much of that attitude prevalent these days, easily evidenced by people flying 747 circuits in their Navajo's and 402's. Ridiculous IMO.

[Clare Prop]

I think some of the OWTs in Aus can be attributed to when the POHs were replaced with the Great Australian Flight Manual and all the "normal operations" sections were no longer there so people made it up as they went along.

When I first came out here from overseas and found people turning off electric fuel pumps on PA28s at 300 feet, using carb heat in the approach in Tomahawks and opening cowl flaps on short final in Mooneys "because that's the way we do it in Australia" I was amazed that none of the people who did these things stopped to think why it was a Bad Idea and the POH said not to.

Similarly with generic checklists, I think the stude really does need to be aware what aeroplane they are flying and use the SOP checklist for that aircraft, and told WHY. There are differences between different types of even lightys. One size doesn't fit all.

[mcgrath50]

I was always taught to check the gear in my C150, but never 'cowl flaps not applicable'

I found I was better at remembering to check the gear than the cowl flaps at appropriate moments when upgrading to those design features.

Either way though by the time I was 'trained' on the aircraft both checks were being done, so whether the teaching method is worthwhile I don't know.

[43Inches]

Either way though by the time I was 'trained' on the aircraft both checks
were being done, so whether the teaching method is worthwhile I don't know.

Adding undercarriage to the downwind check early on does help students convert later on, it also adds the extra benefit of primacy when the student is in an extreme situation later in their flying life.

Adding things such as cowl flaps or fuel pumps when there are none in the aircraft is a waste of time. If you land and forgot to open a cowl flap or turn a pump on 99% of the time there will be little consequence. Landing having Forgotten to lower the gear and there is 100% chance of a memorable experience.

The downwind checks such as BUMPFOC and pre takeoff such as TMPFISCH are good when used as a memory aid in addition to a checklist based on the POH. The items could be carried out efficiently from memory and then actions confirmed via a checklist afterwards. The process is a lot faster than having one hand holding a checklist whilst the other wonders around the cockpit. In larger aircraft these basic checks are replaced by cockpit flows etc. You can do the flow checks in training aircraft and it works well however it takes a longer time to learn for each aircraft type. Flows can also lead to errors if jumping between a lot of different types and layouts.

I prefered SUMPFHB, speed (below Vloe and appropriate for circuit), undercarriage (down and locked), mixture (set), pumps (set) primers (locked/off), fuel (mains/fullest tank and quantity verified) harnesses(secure) and brakes checked for pressure last after the gear had extended. All done then do checklist.

[Tee Emm]

Wouldn't it be fairer to expect your training organization to train you appropriately for what you have strapped to your arse now and form a good solid basis upon which later training in more complex types will build???

That is the only sensible reply I have seen so far in the original thoughtful post by Centaurus.

Clearly the subject has exposed a widely differing number of personal opinions on the subject of standardisation common in the general aviation industry.

Few have mentioned the desirability of the student/pilot being thoroughly famiilar with the manufacturer's POH and staying with its published drills. I like the term Vital Actions published in former RAF and RAAF flying manuals in the 1950's. These were concise and to the point. For example the Pilots Notes (1944) RAAF Publication No. 416 for Tiger Moth Aircraft published the following under the heading Vital Actions for take off;

(i) Elevator Trim neutral.
(ii) Throttle Friction Nut tight
(iii) Mixture control right back to fully rich position,
(iv) Fuel cock on, tank contents sufficient for flight
(v) Slots Unlocked.
(vi) Flying Controls tested for freedom of movement.

Obviously the Vital Actions that I was used to a long time ago differ markedly from what are considered Vital Actions now where the more items included, the merrier. In fact it all depends on the particular instructor's whimsey and his own instructor before that, ad nauseum

I knew an instructor who taught the so called "PPUFF" drill on final in a C150. It was P for Pitch Control not applicable. P for Power Poles watch out for. U for Undercarriage not applicable. F for Flaps as required. F for feathered friends (birds) watch out for. With that as a fairly typical example of what is taught as "professional" in the GA world, then heaven help the poor students who has this rubbish drilled into them. But then he does an instructors course and goes on to spout the same crap.

[T28D]

Tee Emm,
That check list is really similar to my T 28 T/O check just change slats for supercharger in low blower and you are good to go !!

And the pre landing check is even shorter, U/C down indicating locked, propellor 2400 RPM, flaps as required, land straight ahead.

So why would you have a foot long list for a C150 ??? the maintenance manual would be a smaller document.

[TheMist]

How about checking the Fuel Shutoff lever in a C152 before lining up on the runway?

...apparantly your naughty passenger can reach down and turn it off after you checked it before start up

[A37575]

[QUOTEHow about checking the Fuel Shutoff lever in a C152 before lining up on the runway?

...apparantly your naughty passenger can reach down and turn it off after you checked it before start up QUOTE]

Thread drift, I know but funny you should mention the Fuel on/off cock in the Cessna 150/152. Most of the fuel cocks on those aircraft jammed solid with time and yet few pilots ever bothered to snag the defect in the maintenance release. Why not? Answer - they were told by the flying school instructors not to worry about it.

The fact that the POH stated the fuel cock must be turned off during a forced landing or fire, seemed to escape the attention of those pilots including instructors. Years ago I snagged a C150 fuel cock for severe binding and the aircraft owner got all indignant saying it had been like that for years and no one else had mentioned it. Several female students did not have the finger strength to turn the fuel valve which is why it was always left on after shut down. What does that tell you about the integrity of those that flew it?

Similar fuel valve defects were common in the Partenavia where in UK a jammed fuel valve was the primary cause of a fatal ditching. The pilot was unable to move the crossfeed valve but it was locked solid. The pilot drowned.

At the time, there were three Essendon based Partenavias with totally jammed fuel valves and their pilots never snagged them. An LAME showed me one of these aircraft, and I was surprised he did not advise CASA of the defect which was widely known among the owners. Even the report on the Partenavia ditching did not convince him this was a long standing serious defect in valve design. His excuse for not contacting the CASA Airworthiness people was the aircraft owner might not give him more maintenance work if it was known the LAME would contact CASA on possibly allied defects.

In the case of the Point Cook based C150 and the Essendon based Partenavias, it took a CAIR report to ATSB to force the operators owners to fix the problem. These guys were then heartily pissed off because it cost them money. Isn't general aviation wonderful...

I understand the jammed fuel valve defect still exists in some C150/152's but pilots ignore it for fear of making waves. Next time you fly a Partenavia it might be a good idea to ensure each engine cockpit fuel valves move easily between selections. Chances are they will be so stiff to turn that you may needs two hands.

Now back to the original post. You don't need printed checklists in flying school or other light aircraft. Your local CASA FOI might insist but that's his problem. Let's face it. If you can remember your Twelve Times table by heart or the names of the months of the year without Googling it, then it takes little effort to remember the checks by heart. Providing the checks are short and concise. If you have to Google the tables and the names of the months then you are definitely going need a written checklist to start your car and in an aeroplane.

Too often, written checklists are used as a crutch for those who cannot be bothered to learn the drills. These are not complex aircraft and students need to be given short concise drills applicable only to the aircraft type they fly. Anything else added to these checks are a waste of the student's time and money.

Catchy mnemonics are fun to invent; but pity the student who is forced to learn these mnemonics from different instructors who invent them. Strange that mnemonics are not used in jet transports which after all are far more complex than your average light aircraft at Moorabbin or Bankstown..

[poteroo]

If it's not fitted - we don't teach it !

This make believe stuff is what every experienced instructor should give FOI's and ATO's a bloody good serve about on every contact

happy days,

[Checkboard]

I don't see Boeing pilots learning Air Bus drills just in case one day they might fly an Airbus.

You've never worked for an airline flying both types then - it is REALLY common for one type's checks to bleed into the other for "airline commonality".

As to generic checklists - you have one endorsement for single engine less than 5700kg. The school knows that your licence means you can fly any of these types, so teaching a generic "one check fits all" system makes sense.

Sure, if you're flying only one aircraft, feel free to use a manufacturer's POH type-specific checklist, but I know I was happy to use the same memorised checks for warrior, C150, C210, Navajo, Baron etc etc.

... and I was happy to teach the same as an instructor for that very reason.

[Horatio Leafblower]

So Centaurus, A3.... and Tee Emm

Can you gents show me the trail of destruction and the piles of bodies resulting from these practices?

I get the feeling it offends your ex-RAAF sensibilities but I honestly wonder if I will find it somewhere amongst the deadly sins.

One of the reasons these generic acronyms have had so much traction over the years is that they work in the environment they were designed for. Its not the RAAF. It's not an Airline. It's an environment where memorising the manufacturer's checklists for the 10 different types you could fly any day is simply impossible.

The other issues raised - instructor standardisation and the technical understanding of those supposedly 'teaching' new pilots - are very valid and, frankly, a disgrace to those (un-named) organisations.

Best of luck with your crusade.

[NOSIGN]

Although the aircraft checklist has long been regarded as the foundation of pilot standardization and
cockpit safety, it has escaped the scrutiny of the human factors profession. The improper use, or the
non-use, of the normal checklist by flight crews is often cited as the probable cause or at least a
contributing factor to aircraft accidents.

http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/ade...Checklists.pdf

In all honesty I feel that the checklist has been a detriment to all aircraft types that I have flown so far. In each GA commercial operation that I have had the privledge to be involved in, the CASA approved checklist has been a variation of the manufacturers checklist by the CP at the time.

Most recently, the checklist format of a complex aeroplane has been applied to a basic type within our company. What rubbish! **** like this, discourages checklist use because it is superflous.

Why does CASA approve variations of the manufacturers normal checklist to the extent that it does?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Gear down and welded........

Sounds like someone's joke that's become the norm. The gear assembly is normally bolted to the airframe anyway....

"Gear Fixed" is a much better term. Allows the item to be included in the checks while not promoting a call without an associated action. ie, Danger being the pilot could get used to saying "Gear Down" without actioning something.

[snoop doggy dog]

Safety and discipline

Hi Centaurus,

I will try and give you an explaination of why this may occur mate

You may not see a Boeing pilot conducting Airbus procedures, but where I work, we have conducted Boeing procedures as Airbus pilots. Whatever.... It's all about safety and standard operation.

Safety starts by adhering to procedures to deliver the best outcomes If there is procedures that seem a little obscure, as in your case Centaurus, you may want to look at the entire operation and see what they are trying to achieve with the equipment they have. It is called 'standardisation.' Standardisation reduces costs (training etc) whilst minimising the impact on safety. Sorry to say mate, most MBA's (CEO'S) are of accounting nature

For Airbus, as long as there is no blue for take-off and landing, everything is golden. So why do pilot's do a lot of other checks? Pilot's can just take-off or land the plane as long as there is no blue lines on the upper ECAM display right? Sure.... but what happens when there is a problem that needs to be resolved, like an engine fire? If pilot's have not been used to following procedures, pilot's may decide without proper advise, an alternative outcome that s detrimental to safety without good advise (ie Airbus). No no!

Follow the procedure mate, as long as they are safe and are generally what needs to be done. It has been no skin off my workmate's nose in the past sitting in an Airbus saying, 'switching panel normal,' as one would in a classic. It's the bigger picture stuff

Definately put your feedback to your organisation in a positive and constructive manner Centaurus. You may find that you are listened to and procedures refined and better suited to the operation.

It's all about safety mate

[Wally Mk2]

I think a few here are hanging on too tight with all this.As mentioned it's all about safety at the end of the day. Common sense seems to go out the window these days also.Humans will make mistakes despite the best chk list ever devised.Know yr POH.
When I was taught it was the usual checks as per what others have mentioned here,TMPFISCH, BUMPH Etc. Didn't do me any harm to use those basic checks (at times in modified form) for ALL the subsequent types I flew & that inc from C172 right up to LR35 & with many press twin jobs in between.
I flew freelance for years, jumping from one plane to another like women ! One day a PA44 next day PA42. I was my own boss so I needed to have it ingrained in my head to think on my own two feet outside the box many a time,over 30 yrs driving planes & am still here alive with no accidents

Do what YOU feel is correct,do whatever it takes to avoid a visit to the following places/people. CASA office, Undertaker, Bosses office for tea & bickies & getting up close & personal with the ground !!!

Wmk2


Wmk2


Wmk2

[Stationair8]

The old gentleman(ex RAF Spitfire) that taught me used TTMMMPFISCHH and BUMFHH.

B -Brakes check for pedal pressue, big bloody feet moved to heals on the floor and ensure park brake is off.

U -undercarriage down and locked, yes it is C150 but hopefully one day you will flying something bigger and faster that has dangling Dunlops

M-Mixture rich

F-Fuel contents, selection and pumps on if required

H-Hatches secure and ensure seat is locked into position

H- Harness secure.

The old guy had a stellar career in the RAF and survived in GA for many years before doing an instructor rating to see out his final days of flying.
But in nearly 50 years of flying he had seen RAF guys land with feet on brakes, run tanks dry in the circuit area and dunlops not down and locked. While a CP for a charter company a guy succesfully landed a C310 with the park brake . Another pilot who returned to base in the C180 after doing aerial photography to arrive in the flare with the pilot and seat sliding gracefully aft.

[RR69]

BUMFOH and PUF in my opinion are the 2 best "any piston aircraft" checks a pilok could have with obvious additions depending on a/c type.

I always have little home made clipboard with notes added when required to the BUMFOH and PUF checks, however regardless if in a fixed gear vs retrac, or csu vs the one that doesn't make the cool sounds, or single vs twin, that the basics are the same and would recommend sticking to the ones that make sense and work for the individual as long as they're stuck to and done every time ones in command of an aircraft as long as the same outcome is achieved and operating requirements met.

I also like the Green Goblins remarks as all those scenarios have come up over the years and the 2 little checks have saved me from buying multiple beers at the bar!

[A37575]

Best of luck with your crusade.

Forget it. The subject has been done to death over decades of Pprune and not worth pursuing anymore.

[jas24zzk]

The standardised checks do have a place, but some of the teaching/reasoning that people use justify them just sucks eggs.

Learning it by rote, has no place.
For every word you utter in the check, there must be an action, even if it is simply a touch check.

The downwind checks get me giggling the best.

Mags. Yep seems dumb till you knock the mag switch when tidying up your nav crap for the circuit entry. (BE95)

Undercarriage. This one comes into its own for me. Without the generic check, i might just get into trouble. I get to fly a P32A and a P32R (amongst other types). I could use the POH checklists. No prizes for guessing the differences there...damm short list.
Both aircraft have almost identical panels, identically laid out except for the Gear lever/lights, Tape player vs cd, Narco vs king VOR.
Better for me to operate on the generic checklist and check my legs are down EVERY time.

Written checklists are good, but I'm a lil unsure that I am comfortable using them single pilot at a busy strip.

[kimwestt]

TMPFISCH

Works for me every time! With tmpfisch ingrained into your subconciousness, (big word, that) it wil work for you in everything up to and including a Metro, even tho it would not be the "äpproved" checklist. Especially, especially if you find yourself in any "Oh - sh1t"situations. Doesn't matter what phase of flight you are in, maybe you've dropped the checklist and it is 10 feet away.
So what if the item isn't fitted, the next aircraft you fly might well have.
Or you think to yourself, have I checked everything? (You should have - - - but)
If you apply TMPFISCH logic to your checks, there is not much you will miss!
As an earlier post said - show me the trail of bodies and destruction because an item not fitted was included on a generic check list.

Keep the shiny side up!!
Cheers