How do I use a Checklist: Thread# 3,254,682
I used to fly aircraft in Oz with the flip tabs. I thought they were a great way to have the needed checklist stuff conveniently to hand. I've never seen them here in the US. No one seems to know about them.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
New Morno? Been using those (with voice) for ten years!
Sadly the replacements are a step backwards!
I miss the synthesized voice.
Sadly the replacements are a step backwards!
I miss the synthesized voice.
Yeah definitely not new Howard, that's just the header of the page I linked to (pprune did it's automatic thing).
We use them up here too, great great tools.
morno
We use them up here too, great great tools.
morno
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But doing the checks in a flow pattern, then confirming you've done each item by reading the checklist afterwards, is the best way of doing it.
Electronic checklists ... ... it is too easy to fall into the trap of loading too much non essential stuff on to them.
Question 1: What happens when pilots have a hopelessly bloated checklist?
Answer: They don't use them.
Question 2: What happens when you inform the head of check and training that there is a major safety issue at your company because pilots aren't using the checklist?
Answer: They tell you to use the checklist.
Last edited by FGD135; 17th Dec 2012 at 02:32.
Question 3: So who's fault is it when an incident/accident occurs because the pilot wasn't using the checklist?
Answer: The pilot. Tough tinsel. (In the xmas spirit.)
Answer: The pilot. Tough tinsel. (In the xmas spirit.)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was doing some training in the States many years ago. After engine start the instructor noticed the next page was missing from the checklist.
Without any form of run-up and take off checklist he was lost. This in a Cessna 152.
At that time every aeroclub in NZ would have been using TTMPFFIHCL.
In my time working as a LAME for airlines, and in many countries, I cannot ever remember an engineer using any checklist for the routine stuff. A little different I know.
Some of the engineering sheets had a terrible flow to them anyway, even with some of the more modern equipment.
Without any form of run-up and take off checklist he was lost. This in a Cessna 152.
At that time every aeroclub in NZ would have been using TTMPFFIHCL.
In my time working as a LAME for airlines, and in many countries, I cannot ever remember an engineer using any checklist for the routine stuff. A little different I know.
Some of the engineering sheets had a terrible flow to them anyway, even with some of the more modern equipment.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question 3: So who's fault is it when an incident/accident occurs because the pilot wasn't using the checklist?
Answer: The pilot. Tough tinsel. (In the xmas spirit.)
Answer: The pilot. Tough tinsel. (In the xmas spirit.)
Not necessarily, MakeItHappenCaptain. If the pilots have officially raised the issue with the company then it would be the company's fault.
FGD135;
Soooooo.....
Pilot works for company,
Pilot has read and signed ops manual,
Ops manual says checklist must be used,
Pilot refuses to use checklist,
Pilot has accident due to missed checklist items...
In what world would this not be grounds for immediate dismissal (no warnings) due to placing passengers lives at risk? I've seen this outcome before.
You can disagree with a checklist all you like. You have two options. If the company doesn't change it you either use it or work elsewhere.
The C172 with G1000 has 62 separate steps (not including pre-flight) from pre-start utbni take-off, and that's just in the manufacturer's checklist! I've still seen owners able to follow this list EXACTLY (and from memory!). Impressive. Why can't a "professional" pilot do this?
Please tell me if I've interpreted the scenario the wrong way.
Soooooo.....
Pilot works for company,
Pilot has read and signed ops manual,
Ops manual says checklist must be used,
Pilot refuses to use checklist,
Pilot has accident due to missed checklist items...
In what world would this not be grounds for immediate dismissal (no warnings) due to placing passengers lives at risk? I've seen this outcome before.
You can disagree with a checklist all you like. You have two options. If the company doesn't change it you either use it or work elsewhere.
The C172 with G1000 has 62 separate steps (not including pre-flight) from pre-start utbni take-off, and that's just in the manufacturer's checklist! I've still seen owners able to follow this list EXACTLY (and from memory!). Impressive. Why can't a "professional" pilot do this?
Please tell me if I've interpreted the scenario the wrong way.
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 18th Dec 2012 at 07:30.
When you live....
MHC- I think FGD135 is referring to a scenario where there is a problem (or something is plain wrong) with a checklist which makes it unusable, and they've told their employer.
UTR & FGD
That's a pretty big call though, ie. deliberately not using a checklist.
As I said, I've seen dismissals due to accidents directly related to not using a checklist and those were just lazy pilots. Can you imagine the sihtstorm associated with deliberately breaching standard operating procedureand claiming "the company drove them to it"?
Can't understand why the company would be held liable for a pilot's deliberate misconduct.
If you can give an example of "unworkable" items (without alluding to specific companies if possible)? It may lend understanding (but not any form of condoning) to the scenario.
That's a pretty big call though, ie. deliberately not using a checklist.
As I said, I've seen dismissals due to accidents directly related to not using a checklist and those were just lazy pilots. Can you imagine the sihtstorm associated with deliberately breaching standard operating procedureand claiming "the company drove them to it"?
Can't understand why the company would be held liable for a pilot's deliberate misconduct.
If you can give an example of "unworkable" items (without alluding to specific companies if possible)? It may lend understanding (but not any form of condoning) to the scenario.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta love taxing and turning with one engine engaged in beta and the other not in beta!
Is there a problem with doing this?
Isn't it just differential power but in a different form? (Changing thrust by changing blade angle rather than spooling the entire engine/prop up on the outside).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think FGD135 is referring to a scenario where there is a problem (or something is plain wrong) with a checklist which makes it unusable, and they've told their employer.
If you can give an example of "unworkable" items ...
Company SOPs may dictate that the gear is to be extended on mid/late downwind, and if you conform with this, then you can't begin this checklist until after the gear is down, by which time there is insufficient time to check the remaining items properly.
And to top that off, there may be a "finals" checklist with another half dozen, generally trivial items (e.g, another check that the gear is down).
The risks of an accident/incident during the approach to land - especially at night - is greatly elevated when a pilot attempts to conform to such checklists. It could be said that the pilot has a moral duty to NOT use the checklist in such circumstances.
And no, I am not referring to the checklist as a "do list". I am referring to it as strictly a "check list". Which means that you can DO the actions at any time (and any order), but must CHECK those actions strictly via the checklist - in the order presented on the checklist.
A checklist is something that should be respected by pilots, but such a checklist tends to be regarded with contempt - and not used at all.
A well designed checklist will recognise the human factors that are an unavoidable aspect of piloting an aircraft. Those "human factors" mean that even the most disciplined and professional pilots will disrespect checklists that are unnecessarily bloated. Lives have been lost in checklist-related accidents at airlines where checklist abuse was widespread.
If the company has been informed of the major safety deficiency that non-use of the checklists represents, and they take no action (other than to remind pilots they should be using the checklist), then the company would be found to be at fault in any accident where misuse of the checklist was a causal factor.
How the otherwise intelligent C&T staff that create chronically bloated checklists can imagine their pilots diligently checking each and every item on the chronically bloated checklist is beyond my comprehension.
Last edited by FGD135; 19th Dec 2012 at 04:41.
How the otherwise intelligent C&T staff that create chronically bloated checklists can imagine their pilots diligently checking each and every item on the chronically bloated checklist is beyond my comprehension.
The most common reason, recently, is the demands of CASA FOIs to greatly expand AFM checklists with a lot of non-vital junk.
Almost as common, is the percentage who don't understand why you have a "check" list, and want to make it a procedures list.
FOI demands as applied to some of the little jets are ludicrous, and, in my opinion ( as well as being in violation of CAR 138) seriously increases the risk of "getting it wrong", just what a vital actions checklist is designed to avoid.
Just what you would expect with some FOIs having little real experience in the area.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 19th Dec 2012 at 08:41.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Simpson Desert
Age: 46
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This guy does his flows very quickly.. Maybe a bit of a show pony factor for the camera.
There is nothing wrong with using beta on one while the other at a low power setting! Checklists should be short, simple and to the point
There is nothing wrong with using beta on one while the other at a low power setting! Checklists should be short, simple and to the point
Starting to see your angle, FGD, but was expecting items more trivial items such as "set obs 1 to match rwy, set obs 2 to match rwy, note arrival time, secure loose items, check seatbelt..."
Refer to Leadsleds "procedure list vs checklist" comments.
Have worked for companies where certain phases were explicitly stated as memory only checks, eg. finals, although I would say that covering certain items twice is not a bad thing. Gear is definitely one of these.
If you can't manage Prop, Undercarraige, Fuel, Flap, (Cowls, Clearance) or something similar on final, there's a drama and are the company pre-landing checks really anything extra on top of the pre-landing checks you learned at your school?
Final question, do to management pilots use their own checklist?
If no, agreed there's an issue.
If yes, why can't all pilots?
Refer to Leadsleds "procedure list vs checklist" comments.
Have worked for companies where certain phases were explicitly stated as memory only checks, eg. finals, although I would say that covering certain items twice is not a bad thing. Gear is definitely one of these.
If you can't manage Prop, Undercarraige, Fuel, Flap, (Cowls, Clearance) or something similar on final, there's a drama and are the company pre-landing checks really anything extra on top of the pre-landing checks you learned at your school?
Final question, do to management pilots use their own checklist?
If no, agreed there's an issue.
If yes, why can't all pilots?
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 19th Dec 2012 at 12:05.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
The most common reason, recently, is the demands of CASA FOIs to greatly expand AFM checklists with a lot of non-vital junk.
The most common reason, recently, is the demands of CASA FOIs to greatly expand AFM checklists with a lot of non-vital junk.
This is the non-vital junk that should be junked. You will never see this rubbish in a manufacturer's AFM
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinny - I've got one of those flip tab things in a box somewhere, with its original instructions and a coupla sheets of stick-on items...... will have a look if you're really keen. Posi-check or some such I think its called. Skytramps (the real one, not the current iteration) had them in all their aircraft.
Including as always in GA the call "Gear down and locked" even though it is a fixed gear aircraft. Or on final "Pitch full fine" in a fixed pitch prop aircraft.
Gear - Checked, Fixed or Checked, Down
Prop - Checked, Fixed or Checked, Fine
That way the checks are included, no matter what level of aircraft is flown. You aren't however associating a call without an action.