Abbreviated & Expanded Checklists Multi Crew Environment
Thread Starter
Abbreviated & Expanded Checklists Multi Crew Environment
I have an aircraft checklist document to introduce which contains an expanded checklist and abbreviated checklist and I;m trying to get my head around the concept.
Now I understand the basic concept between the two, but not sure how they work in practice. The expanded checklist has the checklist item and who performs the task etc. Is the expanded checklist done silently by each crew member then the abbreviated checklist is the one that is read off.
My take on the concept, the before start checklist as an example.
The crew works through silently on the expanded checklist doing the required checks. Then when ready for start the PF calls for the before start checklist and they go to the abbreviated checklist and start the challenge & response process.
Is the expanded checklist more like a do list where the abbreviated is a checklist.....or have got it all wrong.
Can anyone shed some light on this for a simple single pilot fellow like me.
Now I understand the basic concept between the two, but not sure how they work in practice. The expanded checklist has the checklist item and who performs the task etc. Is the expanded checklist done silently by each crew member then the abbreviated checklist is the one that is read off.
My take on the concept, the before start checklist as an example.
The crew works through silently on the expanded checklist doing the required checks. Then when ready for start the PF calls for the before start checklist and they go to the abbreviated checklist and start the challenge & response process.
Is the expanded checklist more like a do list where the abbreviated is a checklist.....or have got it all wrong.
Can anyone shed some light on this for a simple single pilot fellow like me.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozgrade, it all comes down to the FOI who decides what the checklist will be, and how it will work. Most FOI's prefer read and do as that is the only experience they have to draw on from their local aero club. There is no way anyone can get a proffessional scan flow do then read checklist approved in Australia, unless its supplied by the manufacturer and then there's no guarantee the FOI of the day wont require you to muck about with it.
I've seen before start checklists that take twenty minutes to complete for a simple light jet, and before landing checklists that can take the entire ILS from locator to minima to complete. If the before landing checklist for an airbus contains two items, for a citation the FOI will require forty. Its unproffessional, distracting and dangerous, but thats CAsA for you, they really should take that "s" out of their name.
I've seen before start checklists that take twenty minutes to complete for a simple light jet, and before landing checklists that can take the entire ILS from locator to minima to complete. If the before landing checklist for an airbus contains two items, for a citation the FOI will require forty. Its unproffessional, distracting and dangerous, but thats CAsA for you, they really should take that "s" out of their name.
The expanded checklist is things that have to be done but can be done in a flow sequence. The abbreviated checklist is a challenge and response to make sure that the important items are done,
Eg: after take off you call for gear up, flap retraction on schedule, and switch off taxi/landing lights. You don't do these items as a challenge and response but the abbreviated checklist will have
Flaps...... UP
gear........UP
To ensure the major items are done.
Eg: after take off you call for gear up, flap retraction on schedule, and switch off taxi/landing lights. You don't do these items as a challenge and response but the abbreviated checklist will have
Flaps...... UP
gear........UP
To ensure the major items are done.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozgrade3,
In a nutshell:
The abbreviated checklist is the one used in the aircraft on every sector. It basically contains the individual checklist items with no detail on what has to be done to complete that particular item. The detail for what is required for each individual item will be found in the expanded checklist. The expanded checklist also lives in the aircraft but is not used that often. Moreover it's there for reference and training purposes. An example would be:-
Abbreviated Checklist- Before Take-off
Mags - CHECK
Expanded Checklist - Before Take-Off
Magnetos - increase power to 1700RPM. Check for smooth RPM drop between 50 & 150 RPM.
Simple example. The Flight Check System approval will heavily depend on the FOI doing the assessment. My advice would be put up a well presented, properly formatted document. It shows effort and you'll likely get some effort in return from the FOI.
This has been my experience with the Flight Check System approval process.
D
In a nutshell:
The abbreviated checklist is the one used in the aircraft on every sector. It basically contains the individual checklist items with no detail on what has to be done to complete that particular item. The detail for what is required for each individual item will be found in the expanded checklist. The expanded checklist also lives in the aircraft but is not used that often. Moreover it's there for reference and training purposes. An example would be:-
Abbreviated Checklist- Before Take-off
Mags - CHECK
Expanded Checklist - Before Take-Off
Magnetos - increase power to 1700RPM. Check for smooth RPM drop between 50 & 150 RPM.
Simple example. The Flight Check System approval will heavily depend on the FOI doing the assessment. My advice would be put up a well presented, properly formatted document. It shows effort and you'll likely get some effort in return from the FOI.
This has been my experience with the Flight Check System approval process.
D
A really enlightened abbreviated checklist will even 'chunk' items e.g. it may say "Gear & Flap Up" or "Environmental......" to include the setting of both air conditioning and pressurization controls.
It won't - or should not - include obvious airmanship items like 'Climb Power set' or the two I really, really hate: 'takeoff clearance' and 'landing clearance'. This stuff may have its place at a flying school where they have to cater for student pilots struggling with basic concepts, though even that is debatable, as most simple aircraft can be flown with simple memory checks.
In typical commercial operations, power settings and general airmanship items can be addressed in the SOP, and no doubt your diligent CASA FOI will insist on that.
The expanded checklist should ideally follow the same sequence as the abbreviated checklist, but as its name implies, expand on how stuff is done i.e. the various switch selections in more detail. The expanded checklist is not normally used in daily operations, however could be during training.
Don't confuse the above with 'first flight of day' or 'originating' checklists and 'turnaround' or 'transit' checklists. On turboprops in particular, a lot of stuff is done once a day to check various systems. This can still be incorporated into an abbreviated checklist, perhaps with an asterisk or similar to identify what must be done and when.
It is a nuisance having individual CASA FOIs with their aero club mentality becoming involved with checklists for aircraft on which they may have little, if any, practical experience. I suggest if you have difficulty, refer to the extensive Flight Safety Foundation recommendations on checklists.
It won't - or should not - include obvious airmanship items like 'Climb Power set' or the two I really, really hate: 'takeoff clearance' and 'landing clearance'. This stuff may have its place at a flying school where they have to cater for student pilots struggling with basic concepts, though even that is debatable, as most simple aircraft can be flown with simple memory checks.
In typical commercial operations, power settings and general airmanship items can be addressed in the SOP, and no doubt your diligent CASA FOI will insist on that.
The expanded checklist should ideally follow the same sequence as the abbreviated checklist, but as its name implies, expand on how stuff is done i.e. the various switch selections in more detail. The expanded checklist is not normally used in daily operations, however could be during training.
Don't confuse the above with 'first flight of day' or 'originating' checklists and 'turnaround' or 'transit' checklists. On turboprops in particular, a lot of stuff is done once a day to check various systems. This can still be incorporated into an abbreviated checklist, perhaps with an asterisk or similar to identify what must be done and when.
It is a nuisance having individual CASA FOIs with their aero club mentality becoming involved with checklists for aircraft on which they may have little, if any, practical experience. I suggest if you have difficulty, refer to the extensive Flight Safety Foundation recommendations on checklists.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 16th Feb 2014 at 03:04.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever you do make sure you use the manufactures checklist. There are so many companies and CASA that keeping adding/replacing/moving checklist items around they end up looking nothing like the original checklist.
Most multi-crew aircaft checklists will only contain the items that will kill you if missed ie flaps. However the AOM, FCOM etc for each aircaft will have more detailed items/ flows that are completed before calling for the checklist.
Do a search for the B737 NG manuals and checklist and you will see what I mean. Boeing checklist contain less items than what you will find on your typical Cessna or Piper checklist.
Most multi-crew aircaft checklists will only contain the items that will kill you if missed ie flaps. However the AOM, FCOM etc for each aircaft will have more detailed items/ flows that are completed before calling for the checklist.
Do a search for the B737 NG manuals and checklist and you will see what I mean. Boeing checklist contain less items than what you will find on your typical Cessna or Piper checklist.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach E,
I agree with you whole heartedly, there is a wealth of material out there from the FAA, Caa and NASA as well as the FSF. CAsA's own AOCM provides reasonable guidlines as well. Probem is most FOI's dont read past the first page of the AOCM.
Almost all GA aircraft are built and marketed for private ownership so manufacturers checklists are written more to cover litigation than practicality.
There are perfectly adequate expanded procedures contained in most Flight Manuals, they are headed "Normal Operating PROCEDURES" your friendly local FOI, who sometimes dosnt even have a type rating on the aircraft reads this as "CHECKLIST" because as with the "Duck" looks like a checklist, sounds like a checklist, therefore it must be a checklist, which if they took the trouble of asking the manufacturer or the FAA they would find out that no, what the heading says is exactly what it means, they are expanded PROCEDURES, the checklist is for you the operator to work out.
I have seen CAsA required checklists that run to fifteen pages, containing hundreds of items for a light modern glass light jet. I have watched a crew taxiing at a primary airport, both heads in the cockpit, absorbed with a checklist and system checks that run for most of the taxi time. I just think this is heading to a incursion which could be tragic, already witnessed one in Italy dont want to see one here. The micromanagement and interference by unqualified and inexperienced CAsA staff in operational matters must become a major safety issue or do we wait for the smoking hole before something is done. Why do two different operators of the same aircraft operate totally differently?, why is a CAsA approved manual in WA, not approved in NSW? There is absolutely no standardisation in CAsA, just opinions based on a background as an aeroclub Wallah or a RAAF fighter ace. Pity the poor chief pilots who have to accept what they know to be unsafe, complaining will just lead to threats of having their briefs pulled, just do as your told!!! and when the inevitable happens you just know they'll hang you out to dry because you are responsible.
I agree with you whole heartedly, there is a wealth of material out there from the FAA, Caa and NASA as well as the FSF. CAsA's own AOCM provides reasonable guidlines as well. Probem is most FOI's dont read past the first page of the AOCM.
Almost all GA aircraft are built and marketed for private ownership so manufacturers checklists are written more to cover litigation than practicality.
There are perfectly adequate expanded procedures contained in most Flight Manuals, they are headed "Normal Operating PROCEDURES" your friendly local FOI, who sometimes dosnt even have a type rating on the aircraft reads this as "CHECKLIST" because as with the "Duck" looks like a checklist, sounds like a checklist, therefore it must be a checklist, which if they took the trouble of asking the manufacturer or the FAA they would find out that no, what the heading says is exactly what it means, they are expanded PROCEDURES, the checklist is for you the operator to work out.
I have seen CAsA required checklists that run to fifteen pages, containing hundreds of items for a light modern glass light jet. I have watched a crew taxiing at a primary airport, both heads in the cockpit, absorbed with a checklist and system checks that run for most of the taxi time. I just think this is heading to a incursion which could be tragic, already witnessed one in Italy dont want to see one here. The micromanagement and interference by unqualified and inexperienced CAsA staff in operational matters must become a major safety issue or do we wait for the smoking hole before something is done. Why do two different operators of the same aircraft operate totally differently?, why is a CAsA approved manual in WA, not approved in NSW? There is absolutely no standardisation in CAsA, just opinions based on a background as an aeroclub Wallah or a RAAF fighter ace. Pity the poor chief pilots who have to accept what they know to be unsafe, complaining will just lead to threats of having their briefs pulled, just do as your told!!! and when the inevitable happens you just know they'll hang you out to dry because you are responsible.
Boeing have long had checklists down to a fine art. Don't know anything of Airbus. But Beechcraft did have a terrible checklist for the King Air. Maybe it has improved, but it was a real 'flight 101' job. Though I don't have an actual Beech checklist with me, I recall basic common sense items like: 'shoulder harness....locked', 'rudder pedals....adjust' and even during take off: 'power...apply; check ITT, Torque, RPM' etc.
I guess ever since that retard ran his Citation dry and Cessna got sued because there was no decal under the fuel gauges exhorting the pilot to actually put enough kero in the tanks, manufacturers have to cover every possibility.
Life would be a lot easier if operators could, within reason, be allowed to develop their own procedures. I still have an old United Airlines B737-200 FCOM which has a preamble that basically says that, in the light of their extensive operational experience, they had varied some procedures, and accepted full responsibility for these changes. Boeing happy, FAA happy, pilots happy.
I guess ever since that retard ran his Citation dry and Cessna got sued because there was no decal under the fuel gauges exhorting the pilot to actually put enough kero in the tanks, manufacturers have to cover every possibility.
Life would be a lot easier if operators could, within reason, be allowed to develop their own procedures. I still have an old United Airlines B737-200 FCOM which has a preamble that basically says that, in the light of their extensive operational experience, they had varied some procedures, and accepted full responsibility for these changes. Boeing happy, FAA happy, pilots happy.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 16th Feb 2014 at 03:55.
they had varied some procedures, and accepted full responsibility for these changes. Boeing happy, FAA happy, pilots happy.
There is a procedure for that, the changes from the AFM are accepted by the Type Certificate Holder and the FAA (or not, in some cases), so, in effect it becomes a company specific change to the AFM. Qantas (or at least, they used to) do (did) exactly the same thing --- the pre-takeoff check on the B767 and B744 was doubled --- from 1 item to 2 --- with Boeing "no objection" and FAA concurrence.
CAR 138 seems perfectly clear to me, you will comply with the AFM, as it forms part of the certification of the aircraft, but in the case of operating procedures, CASA FOIs believe their power to issue a direction overrides the certification of the aircraft. You also need to understand the legal basis of Type Acceptance under CASR 21.
To quote the AAAA submission to the ASRR: " only CASA has the prerequisite levels of incompetence to create and sustain such regulatory nonsense."
The AFM is just as much part of the certification of the aircraft as the performance charts, the legal limitations, the weight and balance etc.,
No FOI ( I hope) would purport to give a direction to vary the weight and balance envelope, as part of the Type Certification, so what makes them think they can direct changes to another part of the Type Certification , willy nilly, without the approval of the Type Certificate holder and the NAA that issued the TC/ C.of A (as United has done).
My view is quite clear, CASA FOIs do not have the legal authority to direct amendments to the AFM, without manufacturer (TC holder) and the NAA that issued the Type Certificate /C.of A. approval.
The operator must comply with CAR 138, and so must CASA.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I started my IFR rating at the flying school I did most of my training in, I learnt in a Duchess.
The school had a checklist that was about 6 inches long, double sided and laminated. There was an expanded list, about a page and a half. 3 Years later I returned to get renewed as I had let the original expire, and I still had all the original paperwork from 3 years before..The newer checklists had grown to over a foot long, with the expanded checklist, over 2 1/2 pages. I asked my instructor what had happened and she said "all the b-cats like to make their mark on the school before they move on"
The moral; just use the effing flight manual or pilots operating handbook..if you're sooo smart..then you would've designed and certified the plane your flying instead of just being a pilot..
The school had a checklist that was about 6 inches long, double sided and laminated. There was an expanded list, about a page and a half. 3 Years later I returned to get renewed as I had let the original expire, and I still had all the original paperwork from 3 years before..The newer checklists had grown to over a foot long, with the expanded checklist, over 2 1/2 pages. I asked my instructor what had happened and she said "all the b-cats like to make their mark on the school before they move on"
The moral; just use the effing flight manual or pilots operating handbook..if you're sooo smart..then you would've designed and certified the plane your flying instead of just being a pilot..
Thread Starter
Er.....no, something bigger, that burns Jet A.
Was given a manual not long ago...right Bloggs, you are teaching expanded & abbreviated checklists in **** ground school.......right, sure boss......but...WTF is that LOL.
So a bit of swotting up and some late nights studying etc and off I go.
However I do want to teach integrate the principles in all phases, from effects of controls. I have always done the flow check followed up by the checklist to make sure nothing has been done. Bit sick of students who need a checklist for an bloody after landing check in a warrior.
So I though I'd ask here how things are done in 'real aviation'. As always ask 10 pilots and get 11 opinions.
Was given a manual not long ago...right Bloggs, you are teaching expanded & abbreviated checklists in **** ground school.......right, sure boss......but...WTF is that LOL.
So a bit of swotting up and some late nights studying etc and off I go.
However I do want to teach integrate the principles in all phases, from effects of controls. I have always done the flow check followed up by the checklist to make sure nothing has been done. Bit sick of students who need a checklist for an bloody after landing check in a warrior.
So I though I'd ask here how things are done in 'real aviation'. As always ask 10 pilots and get 11 opinions.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere Pithy
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozgrade3,
If you are talking a "Jet" you have to move away from the CASA driven, GA must do things by checklist.
When you fly an aircraft intended for multi-crew operation you must apply the phase of flight Procedure as written in the AFM/FCOM. This is probably what you are referring to as the "expanded checklist". At the completion of the Procedure the PF would then call for the "........... Checklist" and the PNF would then Challenge the PF for a Response and they would answer having double checked the item.
If you have the Manual can I suggest you read the preamble of the applicable Chapter because that will probably tell you exactly what to do in any case. ThIs is a good practice anyway as your equipment gets more sophisticated.
If you are trying to fly a single pilot a/c like a multi-crew a/c....well, good luck!
If you are talking a "Jet" you have to move away from the CASA driven, GA must do things by checklist.
When you fly an aircraft intended for multi-crew operation you must apply the phase of flight Procedure as written in the AFM/FCOM. This is probably what you are referring to as the "expanded checklist". At the completion of the Procedure the PF would then call for the "........... Checklist" and the PNF would then Challenge the PF for a Response and they would answer having double checked the item.
If you have the Manual can I suggest you read the preamble of the applicable Chapter because that will probably tell you exactly what to do in any case. ThIs is a good practice anyway as your equipment gets more sophisticated.
If you are trying to fly a single pilot a/c like a multi-crew a/c....well, good luck!
An expanded checklist details all the things that must be done/actioned/ checked for each item of the checklist. It is sometimes in the form of a Normal Procedures section of the pilot's operating manual.
The abbreviated checklist only lists the items themselves and is read by one of the crew for the other, or both, as necessary to respond to.
For example:
Expanded checklist:
Lights............Capt, FO...........SET
When cleared to line up:
The captain will extend the landing lights.
The FO will select the strobes and recognition lights to on.
Abbreviated Checklist:
Lights............Capt, FO...........SET
Further, the scans or flows for each crew member are the tasks that each does silently at the appropriate time before the actual checklist is read, in this case, when cleared to line up. When the scans/flows have been done and the captain is ready, he'll call for the bla bla checklist, an item of which will be the lights.
You just cannot accept that an AFM may well explicitly say operators can modify the procedures as they see fit, will you?
The abbreviated checklist only lists the items themselves and is read by one of the crew for the other, or both, as necessary to respond to.
For example:
Expanded checklist:
Lights............Capt, FO...........SET
When cleared to line up:
The captain will extend the landing lights.
The FO will select the strobes and recognition lights to on.
Abbreviated Checklist:
Lights............Capt, FO...........SET
Further, the scans or flows for each crew member are the tasks that each does silently at the appropriate time before the actual checklist is read, in this case, when cleared to line up. When the scans/flows have been done and the captain is ready, he'll call for the bla bla checklist, an item of which will be the lights.
Originally Posted by Ledseald
The operator must comply with CAR 138
Thread Starter
Thanks Capn bloogs. Pretty much as I thought from reading the document.
It's not a jet, I won't be flying it, or doing actual endorsement training, just a part of a course, an intro to the concept if you will. Others far more skilful and wise (and 200 hrs multi-crew experience) than I, get to do the fun bit.
It's not a jet, I won't be flying it, or doing actual endorsement training, just a part of a course, an intro to the concept if you will. Others far more skilful and wise (and 200 hrs multi-crew experience) than I, get to do the fun bit.
Concur with Capn Blogs as to the difference in the two checklists.
If it is a GA turbine the checklist most likely will not "flow" around the cockpit and will not be written for a multi-crew operation.
To write you own, start with the checklists in the AFM. You need to cover all the items in these checklists. Do not forget that there may be checklists in Supplements to the AFM, i.e. Raisbeck Supplement for a King Air. These need to be incorporated into your checklist. An item in a Checklist in a particular Supplement may replace an item in the aircraft manufacturer's AFM Checklist or may be an additional item to what is the AFM Checklist.
Develop a "flow" in the cockpit. If possible sit in the aircraft. Determine where you start with the flow and its direction around the cockpit. Determine who does what. It is no use having the LH pilot moving a switch on a RH panel when it is more convenient for the RH pilot to complete the action. In GA turbine aircraft certified for single-pilot ops all switches are within reach of the LH pilot.
This is also where it could be become tricky as some items have to be checked in a particular sequence but are located on opposite sides of the cockpit.
Some items in the AFM sequence are illogical. From memory checking the fuel panel in a B200 relies on annunicators lights illuminating but the test for the annunicators lights is about 15 items after the fuel panel check.
Once you get the flow correct you should have the basis of the abbreviated checklist. Item....Who.....Response
The Expanded checklist is what the pilot does to get to the Response. This is gleaned from the AFM and/or the Supplements to the AFM.
You may need to add items that are not in the AFM, i.e. at transition - Altimeter 1013 and cross check. Maybe a pressurisation check.
You can add items but you had better have a good reason to delete an item called up in the AFM or a Supplement.
Now some FOIs will insist that the AFM is it. Other FOIs are after a flow around the cockpit.
But that is CAsA.
If it is a GA turbine the checklist most likely will not "flow" around the cockpit and will not be written for a multi-crew operation.
To write you own, start with the checklists in the AFM. You need to cover all the items in these checklists. Do not forget that there may be checklists in Supplements to the AFM, i.e. Raisbeck Supplement for a King Air. These need to be incorporated into your checklist. An item in a Checklist in a particular Supplement may replace an item in the aircraft manufacturer's AFM Checklist or may be an additional item to what is the AFM Checklist.
Develop a "flow" in the cockpit. If possible sit in the aircraft. Determine where you start with the flow and its direction around the cockpit. Determine who does what. It is no use having the LH pilot moving a switch on a RH panel when it is more convenient for the RH pilot to complete the action. In GA turbine aircraft certified for single-pilot ops all switches are within reach of the LH pilot.
This is also where it could be become tricky as some items have to be checked in a particular sequence but are located on opposite sides of the cockpit.
Some items in the AFM sequence are illogical. From memory checking the fuel panel in a B200 relies on annunicators lights illuminating but the test for the annunicators lights is about 15 items after the fuel panel check.
Once you get the flow correct you should have the basis of the abbreviated checklist. Item....Who.....Response
The Expanded checklist is what the pilot does to get to the Response. This is gleaned from the AFM and/or the Supplements to the AFM.
You may need to add items that are not in the AFM, i.e. at transition - Altimeter 1013 and cross check. Maybe a pressurisation check.
You can add items but you had better have a good reason to delete an item called up in the AFM or a Supplement.
Now some FOIs will insist that the AFM is it. Other FOIs are after a flow around the cockpit.
But that is CAsA.
Abbreviated checklist = The actual checklist used in the aircraft.
Expanded checklist = The abbreviated checklist expanded with explanatory information. Not used in the aircraft but studied during training so that you know what the abbreviated checklist means.
The expanded checklist is also different from the "scan" or "flow".
The way the system should work is that you have a cue, such as "cleared to line up", that prompts a scan. The scan is the act of making a set of switch selections appropriate to the phase of flight (lights on, autothrottle armed, config checked etc) and should be in the most logical order for actioning the items, i.e., it should be geographical if possible. Once the scan is completed the checklist is called for and covers the important parts of the scan. There may be items in the scan that aren't covered by the checklist simply because they're not that important. The checklist may also not be in the same order as the scan, it should be in an order that makes the most logical sense for checking that items have been actioned.
The expanded checklist sits in your company manuals somewhere and if you ever forget what you are supposed to have checked when replying "checked" to a checklist item you can look it up and refresh your memory.
I have only worked for two companies with a cue/scan/checklist system and one of them had the actual scans laid out in their manuals. The other didn't care what scan you used, that was up to you, all they told you was what needed to be done. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day, but for a newbie it is a lot easier to learn flows/scans etc if you don't have to make it up on the fly.
Expanded checklist = The abbreviated checklist expanded with explanatory information. Not used in the aircraft but studied during training so that you know what the abbreviated checklist means.
The expanded checklist is also different from the "scan" or "flow".
The way the system should work is that you have a cue, such as "cleared to line up", that prompts a scan. The scan is the act of making a set of switch selections appropriate to the phase of flight (lights on, autothrottle armed, config checked etc) and should be in the most logical order for actioning the items, i.e., it should be geographical if possible. Once the scan is completed the checklist is called for and covers the important parts of the scan. There may be items in the scan that aren't covered by the checklist simply because they're not that important. The checklist may also not be in the same order as the scan, it should be in an order that makes the most logical sense for checking that items have been actioned.
The expanded checklist sits in your company manuals somewhere and if you ever forget what you are supposed to have checked when replying "checked" to a checklist item you can look it up and refresh your memory.
I have only worked for two companies with a cue/scan/checklist system and one of them had the actual scans laid out in their manuals. The other didn't care what scan you used, that was up to you, all they told you was what needed to be done. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day, but for a newbie it is a lot easier to learn flows/scans etc if you don't have to make it up on the fly.
You just cannot accept that an AFM may well explicitly say operators can modify the procedures as they see fit, will you?
In short, no. Show me an AFM that says that !
In the literal legal meaning of the words you use, not some local constructive misinterpretation.
I have dealt with a lot of AFMs over the years, mostly( but not only) FAA or Transport Canada TCs, I have never seen one. I would go further, and suggest that such an AFM would not comply with ICAO Annex 8 and sundry ICAO docs. on the subject of aircraft certification.
If an operator has an aircraft, that the AFM says something that can be interpreted that way, it is a seriously deficient AFM. Given the amount of work and background information that goes into determining certified procedures, and the potential legal liabilities attached to deficient procedures, the likelihood of any manufacturer giving legal carte blanche to individual operators seems very remote to me.
This is quite distinct from the (say FAA) guidelines for company specific Part 121, 125 or 135 FCOMs, and acceptable and non-acceptable ways of incorporating normal and non-normal AFM operating procedures and checklists.
As the ATSB said, when the famous case of the almost disastrous A320 GA at YMML was finally investigated, Jetstar has made a change to the expanded operating procedures without the TC holder approval, and that had a significant bearing in this very serious incident.Airbus did not approve the change, Jetstar reverted to the TC AFM.
As I said before, CAR 138 and CASR 21 are quite clear.
Tootle pip!!
PS: What Thornbird is referring to, demands by particular FOIs, are creating a very dangerous operating environment. As to Bloggs example dealing with lights, that must be from a very old TC, in "more modern" aircraft, that would often not even be on the "expanded checklist/normal operating procedures", but just be expected of a normally competent and trained crew, who can tell the difference between day and night, or night with fog, where you decide not to use the landing lights for either landing of takeoff.
I am reminded of the "Preflight preparation procedures" on the B747 Classics --- some 400+ items that took the Captain, FO and FE about 20 minutes.
The Checklist call was: Preflight Preparation Procedures
The answer was:Complete -- P, F, E
Last edited by LeadSled; 16th Feb 2014 at 23:34.
and the PNF would then Challenge the PF for a Response
In fact in the simulator we see on countless occasions, the check list reader busy mumbling away with his own responses while the PF is heads down tapping away on his FMC CDU oblivious to whether or not his mate in the other seat is actually making switch selections or just talking to himself before putting the checklist in its slot and announcing in a professional deep pilot like voice " XXX CHECK LIST COMPLETE" (mainly for the CVR of course).
Folks,
Just a bit of expansion on my last post:
The checklist philosophy that is now preferred, in a modern flight deck, for normal operations, is to only cover vital actions.
Thus, the "Before Takeoff Checklist" Boeing style, will be "Flaps"
The Before Landing Checklist might be as brief as "Gear" and "Flaps"
The "checklist" is not a "simplified" "Expanded Checklist".
The "Normal Operations" section of the manual will cover all phases of flight, in detail, but you will be expected to carry out all those functions just as a normal day to day operation of the aeroplane.
The "Non Normal" Checklist will be a lot more detailed, generally with only a few memory items, and most of the non-normals will be "read and do".
Sadly, there is little commonality between major manufacturers, and the setup for many smaller turbo-props is "orrible". Even GA type aircraft that nominally follow the GAMA recommended framework for an AFM show "interesting" variations in interpretations of the guidelines.
"Read and do" normal operations, as demanded by quite a few CASA FOIs are a threat to aviation safety. They are not checklists at all, they are procedures lists.
Finally, on the subject of CAR 138, who wants to be the first pilot in command, in the witness box, to be asked by the QC for the survivors: Captain, you did not comply with the AFM, as required by the manufacturer's TC and CAR 138. Instead, you followed a document that was significantly different. As the person ultimately responsible for the aircraft, up to the time of the accident we are examining, why did you use this document?
Tootle pip!!
Just a bit of expansion on my last post:
The checklist philosophy that is now preferred, in a modern flight deck, for normal operations, is to only cover vital actions.
Thus, the "Before Takeoff Checklist" Boeing style, will be "Flaps"
The Before Landing Checklist might be as brief as "Gear" and "Flaps"
The "checklist" is not a "simplified" "Expanded Checklist".
The "Normal Operations" section of the manual will cover all phases of flight, in detail, but you will be expected to carry out all those functions just as a normal day to day operation of the aeroplane.
The "Non Normal" Checklist will be a lot more detailed, generally with only a few memory items, and most of the non-normals will be "read and do".
Sadly, there is little commonality between major manufacturers, and the setup for many smaller turbo-props is "orrible". Even GA type aircraft that nominally follow the GAMA recommended framework for an AFM show "interesting" variations in interpretations of the guidelines.
"Read and do" normal operations, as demanded by quite a few CASA FOIs are a threat to aviation safety. They are not checklists at all, they are procedures lists.
Finally, on the subject of CAR 138, who wants to be the first pilot in command, in the witness box, to be asked by the QC for the survivors: Captain, you did not comply with the AFM, as required by the manufacturer's TC and CAR 138. Instead, you followed a document that was significantly different. As the person ultimately responsible for the aircraft, up to the time of the accident we are examining, why did you use this document?
Tootle pip!!