The dollars cost of reading written checklists.
Have to agree with Centaurus'original posting - though I agree the POH is the legally binding doc.
I'm all for pruning the checklist to the essentials and keeping the students' head outside the cockpit.
This leads on to whether checklists should include items which are not present in the aircraft being flown, but which the student might 'one day' be using in a more advanced type. Big thumbs down to this!
The K.I.S.S. principle should apply.
happy days,
I'm all for pruning the checklist to the essentials and keeping the students' head outside the cockpit.
This leads on to whether checklists should include items which are not present in the aircraft being flown, but which the student might 'one day' be using in a more advanced type. Big thumbs down to this!
The K.I.S.S. principle should apply.
happy days,
perhaps the only written checklist should be a before take-off checklist, ruthessly culled to Vital Actions only, and omitting superfluous items that could be considered part of normal airmanship.
I remember checking out a European PPL holder a few years ago and when it came to the PFLWOP exercise and the power had been "cut" he wanted to know where the checklist for the FLWOP was. Right at the time where he really needed to carry out some memory items and be head up looking for a landing site and planning the descent he wanted to spend time looking at a checklist.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
though I agree the POH is the legally binding doc.
Calling Creampuff????
The POH is a story book with lots of examples on how you could operate the machine, on how certain things work and perform.
If one was to take that statement too literally, does it mean as the airframe ages and it now stalls 1 knot differently it must be grounded?
People seem to forget that the FAA when certifying the plane only cared about section 2: LIMITATIONS.
I have a feeling over the years, the notion of legally binding in all areas has started as folklore and is now law.
As an example, two identical airframes, same part numbers on the wings and flaps etc, can have two different statements on "short field" take off.
I may be wrong, ready for a nice serving of salted crow, but I think most folk have accepted folklore to be law. Myself included.
Without kicking the sleeping dog, Jaba, in today's envionment of "who can be blamed for this event", operating contrary to a POH certainly opens up a big opportunity for litigation when it all goes arse up.
Somewhere in the regs is a clear statement that one must comply with the approved flight manual. Some old aeroplanes may not have an AFM so just the placards - however they may have a POH. The newer POHs generally incorporate the AFM. Generally not every page of a POH is the approved AFM.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Aircraft Flight Manuals
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Aircraft Flight Manuals
From the CASA link on DJP's post
Assuming Jabawocky is correct that only section 2 is part of the type certificate, then there's not much which is mandatory.
The basic AFM for the aircraft is the correct and current maker's AFM that was approved by the relevant NAA.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus mandate calls immediately when the mode of navigation or thrust changes. Jetstar thought better and bumped the call until well established in the go-around. Then they very, very nearly flew a perfectly serviceable jet into the ground because of it.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/793232/ao2007044.pdf
Contributing safety factors
• The pilot in command did not correctly move the thrust levers to the
take-off/go-around position when carrying out the first missed approach
procedure.
• The aircraft operator had changed the standard operating procedure for the
go-around. The change resulted in the flight crew being unaware of the flight
mode status of the aircraft during the first part of the first missed approach.
[Significant Safety Issue]
Other safety factors
• The aircraft operator did not conduct a risk analysis when changing the
go-around procedure, nor did its safety management system require one to be
conducted. [Significant Safety Issue]
• The pilot in command did not correctly move the thrust levers to the
take-off/go-around position when carrying out the first missed approach
procedure.
• The aircraft operator had changed the standard operating procedure for the
go-around. The change resulted in the flight crew being unaware of the flight
mode status of the aircraft during the first part of the first missed approach.
[Significant Safety Issue]
Other safety factors
• The aircraft operator did not conduct a risk analysis when changing the
go-around procedure, nor did its safety management system require one to be
conducted. [Significant Safety Issue]
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eI have an advice from our insurance broker to the effect
that operating the aircraft contrary to its certificated
procedures in the AFM without a no objection advice from the
manufacturer or certifying authority could be grounds for a claim
being denied.
Buggered if I'd like to stand up in a coroners court and try and
explain why I thought I knew better than the people that built it.
that operating the aircraft contrary to its certificated
procedures in the AFM without a no objection advice from the
manufacturer or certifying authority could be grounds for a claim
being denied.
Buggered if I'd like to stand up in a coroners court and try and
explain why I thought I knew better than the people that built it.
Last edited by thorn bird; 7th Jan 2013 at 09:33.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thorn bird
You may have hit the nail on the head.
The certified part of the AFM/POH hatever you wat to call it "as I understand it" from people far more knowledgable than me, and who actually do FAA certifying, is that it applies to section 2 only.
Assuming I am not misguided, and maybe I am, that means the certificated ones are section 2.
Anyone got concrete proof I am wrong??? Happy to be (well not caring) corrected but I do think this is another case of "the bigger lie, the more you tell it, the more people believe it".
If 90 of us on pprune say Avgas has an SG of 1.15 not 0.71 and we all start saying it, eventually everyone accepts it as fact, then it becomes fact, and because some lawyer uses this in an insurance case and wins, and sets a precedent (albeit wrong) then does that now make that fact a real one?
Just like fuel cools, more fuel makes CHT go down thus it must
And by now we all should know this is a complete myth. But for a long time this was accepted wisdom in GA, and still is with 95% of instructors, students PPLs and CPLs............. but don't start me, start another thread. But some lawyer may use this myth to win a case.x100
You may have hit the nail on the head.
to its certificated procedures in the AFM
Assuming I am not misguided, and maybe I am, that means the certificated ones are section 2.
Anyone got concrete proof I am wrong??? Happy to be (well not caring) corrected but I do think this is another case of "the bigger lie, the more you tell it, the more people believe it".
If 90 of us on pprune say Avgas has an SG of 1.15 not 0.71 and we all start saying it, eventually everyone accepts it as fact, then it becomes fact, and because some lawyer uses this in an insurance case and wins, and sets a precedent (albeit wrong) then does that now make that fact a real one?
Just like fuel cools, more fuel makes CHT go down thus it must
And by now we all should know this is a complete myth. But for a long time this was accepted wisdom in GA, and still is with 95% of instructors, students PPLs and CPLs............. but don't start me, start another thread. But some lawyer may use this myth to win a case.x100
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yeah Trent, ya smarta$$.....not holding on too tight.....Just lost the plot completely 
Yeah I know....proven ages ago.
HNY by the way
I have been sucked in many times over by the urban myth, and probably will let my guard down and be sucked in again. It just needs all the myth busting we can muster.
I see why the Mythbuster guys have so much fun...
Yeah I know....proven ages ago.
HNY by the way
I have been sucked in many times over by the urban myth, and probably will let my guard down and be sucked in again. It just needs all the myth busting we can muster.
I see why the Mythbuster guys have so much fun...
Thread Starter
I have been sucked in many times over by the urban myth, and probably will let my guard down and be sucked in again. It just needs all the myth busting we can muster.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref Jabawocky's Post #28 (I like it)
Deakin and gang have done a real service to general aviation in dispelling the myths that have existed for much too long.
The best checklists I have ever used were the ones I wrote. Unfortunately, I haven't written all of them. Using brevity and emphasizing essential items in a flow is a great path to take. I now contract for a government agency with mostly ex-military pilots running the show...and the lengthy, detailed checklists reflect that. The difference between a civilian (airline) and military checklist on the same type is a frustrating eye-opener.
A training checklist is necessary for the neophyte learning to fly, but I feel the "do list" form of checklist should be transitioned at some point in the training to more of a flow and check type of procedure as the student gains experience. It seems to remove the disconnect between the student's thought process and involvement in the task and what is really happening.
I have had my own airplane for awhile and no longer instruct in little airplanes as I did in the beginning of my career. My C-185 Before Takeoff Checklist, as an example:
While waiting for cylinder heads to reach 225dF prior to takeoff (allowing oil temp rise to green arc).
Flight Instruments
Radios
Engine Instruments (includes runup/prop cycle/suction, etc., if desired)
Trim
Flaps
Fuel
All done in a flow. The last items when taking the runway are:
Landing lights - Flash
Mixture - Set (normally leaned as much as possible until takeoff is imminent)
This may not work for everyone, but after 1,000 hours in my own plane it works well without having to refer to a paper checklist. Frankly, if you can't start, taxi and takeoff in your little spam can using situation awareness without referring to a lengthy and detailed training checklist, you really should stick to simple automobiles with automatic transmissions. Do you really need doors and seat belts on the checklist after obtaining your license? If you do, perhaps you should reconsider what you are about to do with an airplane. I certainly wouldn't ride along in the back seat.
Train your brain and wean yourself off that clunky training checklist, if you can.
BTW, 1,000 hours with GAMIjectors and still going strong. WOTLOPSOP
The best checklists I have ever used were the ones I wrote.
Unfortunately, I haven't written all of them. Using brevity and emphasizing essential items in a flow is a great path to take. I now contract for a government agency with mostly ex-military pilots running the show...and the lengthy, detailed checklists reflect that. The difference between a civilian (airline) and military checklist on the same type is a frustrating eye-opener.A training checklist is necessary for the neophyte learning to fly, but I feel the "do list" form of checklist should be transitioned at some point in the training to more of a flow and check type of procedure as the student gains experience. It seems to remove the disconnect between the student's thought process and involvement in the task and what is really happening.
I have had my own airplane for awhile and no longer instruct in little airplanes as I did in the beginning of my career. My C-185 Before Takeoff Checklist, as an example:
While waiting for cylinder heads to reach 225dF prior to takeoff (allowing oil temp rise to green arc).
Flight Instruments
Radios
Engine Instruments (includes runup/prop cycle/suction, etc., if desired)
Trim
Flaps
Fuel
All done in a flow. The last items when taking the runway are:
Landing lights - Flash
Mixture - Set (normally leaned as much as possible until takeoff is imminent)
This may not work for everyone, but after 1,000 hours in my own plane it works well without having to refer to a paper checklist. Frankly, if you can't start, taxi and takeoff in your little spam can using situation awareness without referring to a lengthy and detailed training checklist, you really should stick to simple automobiles with automatic transmissions. Do you really need doors and seat belts on the checklist after obtaining your license? If you do, perhaps you should reconsider what you are about to do with an airplane. I certainly wouldn't ride along in the back seat.
Train your brain and wean yourself off that clunky training checklist, if you can.
BTW, 1,000 hours with GAMIjectors and still going strong. WOTLOPSOP
Last edited by Desert185; 7th Jan 2013 at 15:03.
Sorry guys, but gotta put this one back out there...
CAR 138 Pilot to comply with requirements etc of aircraft’s flight manual etc
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) If a flight manual has not been issued for an Australian aircraft and, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, the information and instructions that would otherwise be contained in an aircraft’s flight manual are to be displayed either wholly on a placard, or partly on a placard and partly in another document, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out:
(a) on the placard; or
(b) on the placard or in the other document.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Legally binding?
CAR 138 Pilot to comply with requirements etc of aircraft’s flight manual etc
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) If a flight manual has not been issued for an Australian aircraft and, under the relevant airworthiness standards for the aircraft, the information and instructions that would otherwise be contained in an aircraft’s flight manual are to be displayed either wholly on a placard, or partly on a placard and partly in another document, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out:
(a) on the placard; or
(b) on the placard or in the other document.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Legally binding?
RAAF CT4 checklists
Capt Sand Dune
I have heard that part of the reason for the longer-than-need-be (and messy) CT4 checklist is to help weed out those who can't memorise a checklist (considered to be of importance for single pilot ops).
Have heard of flights being terminated at the threshold when checklists can't be recalled correctly ... followed by a very quiet cockpit for the return to ramp.
cheers
layman
I have heard that part of the reason for the longer-than-need-be (and messy) CT4 checklist is to help weed out those who can't memorise a checklist (considered to be of importance for single pilot ops).
Have heard of flights being terminated at the threshold when checklists can't be recalled correctly ... followed by a very quiet cockpit for the return to ramp.
cheers
layman
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
MIHC
So what do you do when the POH has several INSTRUCTIONS or for that matter PROCEDURES that are different.
No not different as in contradictory, but different as in either OR??
Worse still what do you do when one instruction or procedure is actually contrary to another? this is not rare. If you have never found this, I suggest you have not been diligent enough to date. From my guessing you fly all sorts of things so you of all people should have seen this almost daily.
I think you are falling for the trap of not getting the intent.
Go grab a handfull off POH's and declare, swear on a stack of bibles or whatever takes your fancy and tell us all that this is never the case.
Despite what CAR138 might say, at the end of the day it will eventually come back to the type certificate or STC as applicable, generally but not limited to one issued by the FAA.
Just as has been the case many times before we all get sucked into believing that the POH only says one thing, it does not mean all other things are excluded. And that what is the intent of section 2, the things excluded.
Otherwise, ....no...I am not going there, Trent thinks I am hanging on too tight
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
No not different as in contradictory, but different as in either OR??
Worse still what do you do when one instruction or procedure is actually contrary to another? this is not rare. If you have never found this, I suggest you have not been diligent enough to date. From my guessing you fly all sorts of things so you of all people should have seen this almost daily.
I think you are falling for the trap of not getting the intent.
Go grab a handfull off POH's and declare, swear on a stack of bibles or whatever takes your fancy and tell us all that this is never the case.
Despite what CAR138 might say, at the end of the day it will eventually come back to the type certificate or STC as applicable, generally but not limited to one issued by the FAA.
Just as has been the case many times before we all get sucked into believing that the POH only says one thing, it does not mean all other things are excluded. And that what is the intent of section 2, the things excluded.
Otherwise, ....no...I am not going there, Trent thinks I am hanging on too tight
Not trying to stir you up at all, Jaba.
djpil mentioned there was a reg covering compliance and just reminding people that despite the thread seeming to be heading in the direction that a couple of mnemonics will cover everything, there is a requirement to follow the AFM and deviation may mean liabiliy in the event of an accident.
Certainly there are manufacturers who have stuffed things up and an informed action (engineering advice may be overkill, but I have gone as far as correspondance with the factory for a procedure that wasn't just contrary, but totally incorrect) to resolve the procedure is certainly the smart thing to undertake.
What actions have you taken for what level of discrepancy? (Not being a smartarse, serious question.) As an example, Aztec flight manuals being amended to remove all reference to crossfeeding as a normal procedure (ie. emergencies only) is an AD.
Back to topic, but wrt the OP, a bit of chair flying costs nothing and familiarity with the aircraft certainly will save the student some money. If they lack the dedication to learn off their own bat, the hip pocket may be a better motivator (exceptions being some daddy fundeds I've seen). Certainly, there are some unnecessarily extensive publications out there.
Absolutely.
djpil mentioned there was a reg covering compliance and just reminding people that despite the thread seeming to be heading in the direction that a couple of mnemonics will cover everything, there is a requirement to follow the AFM and deviation may mean liabiliy in the event of an accident.
Certainly there are manufacturers who have stuffed things up and an informed action (engineering advice may be overkill, but I have gone as far as correspondance with the factory for a procedure that wasn't just contrary, but totally incorrect) to resolve the procedure is certainly the smart thing to undertake.
What actions have you taken for what level of discrepancy? (Not being a smartarse, serious question.) As an example, Aztec flight manuals being amended to remove all reference to crossfeeding as a normal procedure (ie. emergencies only) is an AD.
Back to topic, but wrt the OP, a bit of chair flying costs nothing and familiarity with the aircraft certainly will save the student some money. If they lack the dedication to learn off their own bat, the hip pocket may be a better motivator (exceptions being some daddy fundeds I've seen
). Certainly, there are some unnecessarily extensive publications out there.
A training checklist is necessary for the neophyte learning to fly, but I feel the "do list" form of checklist should be transitioned at some point in the training to more of a flow and check type of procedure as the student gains experience. It seems to remove the disconnect between the student's thought process and involvement in the task and what is really happening.
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 9th Jan 2013 at 13:54.