Checklists according to CASA
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Centaurus
I reckon that list can be shortened even further;
And the optional for retracts
Anything else is just normal flying of an aeroplane. Sure some will be more complicated than others but the flying school C172 is not one of them.
Simple checklist to get in a habit then as it gets more complicated, so the checklist, all the way to a Concorde or Space Shuttle.
Chimbu W
PS: You could add the QF32 item from Mr Matt Hicks……Don't Crash!!
I reckon that list can be shortened even further;
1. Seats, Seat Belts, Shoulder Harness....Adjust and Lock.
2. Undercarriage.....Confirm down and Locked.
Simple checklist to get in a habit then as it gets more complicated, so the checklist, all the way to a Concorde or Space Shuttle.
Chimbu W
with the checklist as a final filter for the "gotcha" items.
PS: You could add the QF32 item from Mr Matt Hicks……Don't Crash!!
Thread Starter
Seeing as I started this thread I thought readers may be interested in the following story.
The date was 31 May 1959 and a new Commanding Officer was scheduled for his first dual conversion trip with Flight Lieutenant Centaurus at Townsville. Cent was the squadron QFI (Qualified Flying Instructor) and the aircraft was the Lincoln four engine bomber, similar to the wartime Lancaster except bigger. The new CO was Wing Commander Cy Greenwood OBE AFC. His previous posting was in USA as a staff officer on exchange duties with the United States Air Force which included flying military DC4 Skymasters. Like the Avro Lincoln, the DC4 was a four engine type. Unbeknown to me he was used to checklists in DC4’s. Before that he held various posts in RAAF staff jobs and in 1945 became the CO of the RAAF Contingent during the Berlin Airlift. Google these terms if you don’t know what they mean.
During WW2 he flew Beaufighter fighter bombers against Japanese forces in Timor.
On his last raid he had attacked a line of Rufe Jap Zero floatplanes sitting in the water and shot them up with his Beaufighter’s four 20mm cannon and six machine guns. That was real fire power. In the process, he was shot down by a couple of Rufes he didn’t see and with both engines out of action had no choice but to ditch a few hundred yards from the Timor coast. His navigator was killed in the attack.
As Cy swam away from his sinking Beaufighter the Rufe pilots machine-gunned him in the water but fortunately didn’t hit him because he kept ducking under the water when they came in. Local natives rescued him but a traitorous native later dobbed him in to searching Jap soldiers and he was captured. He spent time in various POW camps including the notorious Changi prison on Singapore Island until repatriated after the war. Cy was a direct man and stood no nonsense from anyone. As it turned out, that included me. He had a fierce looking moustache too.
We didn’t use checklists in RAAF aircraft – simply did a left to right scan and a generic pre-take off check with additional items included dependant on the type of aircraft you were flying. It worked well on Tiger Moths and Wirraways right through to Mustangs, Meteors and Vampires. I still use it for GA types.
Now we all know that Townsville is in the tropics and hot. The Lincoln had no air-conditioning and was a sweat box on the tarmac. Pilots were issued with a booklet called Pilot’s Notes and Flight Engineer’s Notes for Lincoln. There were 52 pages covering basic engineering systems and how to fly the aircraft. The first page said “Pilot’s checklist” and started with “Dinghy external release….Secure” The list covered the walk around as well as numerous other items and culminated in item No 158 “Pitot Heat….Cover on” It was meant for aircrew to study but considered far too lengthy to use on the ground and in the air. As I said before, in those days we scanned left to right.
Now Commanding Officers are busy people what with holding parades, charging airmen for disorderly conduct like being smashed out of their mind when on duty, entertaining big brass from Headquarters and all the other responsibilities pertaining to running a squadron of aeroplanes. Most CO’s don’t get time to read Pilots Notes and to sit in a 50 degree C hot cockpit learning left to right scans is simply not on. The aim is to get airborne as soon as practicable and cool down with the windows open at low level. That was for the Lincoln, anyway.
So after I had walked the new CO around the external inspection of the Lincoln, we hauled our parachutes and Mae Wests (google it) up the long ladder that went up to the escape hatch in the nose and I asked Big Julie to take the pilot’s seat. I should have explained about the expression Big Julie – sorry about that. The call-sign of each Lincoln was JC plus another letter. Hence our aircraft was Juliet Charlie Sierra. The CO had a slight speech impediment in that he tended to slur the word `Juliet` and it came out as Julie. It was a no-brainer that he was soon given the nickname of “Big Julie” - behind his back of course. Anyway, by the time he took his seat and worked out where the park brake and bomb door lever were located it was not long before the tropical sun shining through the glass-house cockpit area had our flying suits, flying helmets and underwear running with sweat and no amount of deodorant could disguise the whiff of hairy underarms. I used to wonder why the Brits were called Pongo’s and now I knew. British designed aircraft had that certain odour. I preferred the hydraulic oil smell of a Dakota cockpit.
I started my instructor spiel with “Now sir, we start with a left to right scan.” Big Julie arced up – his moustache bristling. “Where’s the check list, Flight Lieutenant”?
“Check List, Sir?” I replied. “We don’t use a checklist in Lincolns – it’s all up here” I said, pointing to my head with one finger. Jeez -the old bugger is dead serious, I thought. Big Julie unstrapped and said “This squadron is grounded until you have a checklist.” He had been used to reading checklists in the USAF and couldn’t believe that an aircraft as big as a Lincoln didn’t have a checklist. With that, we all (that included the radio operator) clambered back down the ladder to the hot tarmac while I went away to dream up a checklist.
I had never used a checklist before, let alone design one, so quickly went through the Pilot’s Notes Lincoln and copied out on a sheet of paper all the checklist items that were in the first three pages. There were 158 items. The next day, after I had spent hours on the ancient roneo machine copying checklist pages for all squadron pilots (22 of them), I knocked on the door of Big Julie’s office and suggested we go flying with the new checklist. I didn’t tell him that the squadron pilots were giving me dark looks after reading the 158 challenge and response checklist items.
My log book shows that on 8 June 1959, Wing Commander Cy Greenwood (aka Big Julie) CO of No 10 (Maritime Reconnaissance) Squadron, and Flt Lt QFI Centaurus, strapped in to Lincoln A73-66 and prepared for dual familiarisation Conversion Exercise 1. It was a typical hot and humid Townsville day. I started to read from my laboriously typed three page checklist. Admittedly, the first 36 items consisted of the pre-flight walk around so I skipped that. Then I started the cockpit checklist at item 107 which was ignition switches off and waited for Big Julie to respond to my challenge. He glared at me and asked what the hell was he supposed to reply. I said you respond by saying “Ignition switches…Off”, SIR. Although I was the instructor, one always addressed a senior officer as Sir. By now I could sense the temperature was rising in the cockpit and it wasn’t just the sun shining through the glasshouse. A couple of minutes later, I had just read out item Number 123 which said “Adjust head-set and check with crew” when the Old Man said “STOP. Throw away that bloody checklist and show me the left to right scan”
Much to the relief of the other squadron pilots the remainder of the Lincoln checklists were consigned to the rubbish bin and the subject was never raised again.
The date was 31 May 1959 and a new Commanding Officer was scheduled for his first dual conversion trip with Flight Lieutenant Centaurus at Townsville. Cent was the squadron QFI (Qualified Flying Instructor) and the aircraft was the Lincoln four engine bomber, similar to the wartime Lancaster except bigger. The new CO was Wing Commander Cy Greenwood OBE AFC. His previous posting was in USA as a staff officer on exchange duties with the United States Air Force which included flying military DC4 Skymasters. Like the Avro Lincoln, the DC4 was a four engine type. Unbeknown to me he was used to checklists in DC4’s. Before that he held various posts in RAAF staff jobs and in 1945 became the CO of the RAAF Contingent during the Berlin Airlift. Google these terms if you don’t know what they mean.
During WW2 he flew Beaufighter fighter bombers against Japanese forces in Timor.
On his last raid he had attacked a line of Rufe Jap Zero floatplanes sitting in the water and shot them up with his Beaufighter’s four 20mm cannon and six machine guns. That was real fire power. In the process, he was shot down by a couple of Rufes he didn’t see and with both engines out of action had no choice but to ditch a few hundred yards from the Timor coast. His navigator was killed in the attack.
As Cy swam away from his sinking Beaufighter the Rufe pilots machine-gunned him in the water but fortunately didn’t hit him because he kept ducking under the water when they came in. Local natives rescued him but a traitorous native later dobbed him in to searching Jap soldiers and he was captured. He spent time in various POW camps including the notorious Changi prison on Singapore Island until repatriated after the war. Cy was a direct man and stood no nonsense from anyone. As it turned out, that included me. He had a fierce looking moustache too.
We didn’t use checklists in RAAF aircraft – simply did a left to right scan and a generic pre-take off check with additional items included dependant on the type of aircraft you were flying. It worked well on Tiger Moths and Wirraways right through to Mustangs, Meteors and Vampires. I still use it for GA types.
Now we all know that Townsville is in the tropics and hot. The Lincoln had no air-conditioning and was a sweat box on the tarmac. Pilots were issued with a booklet called Pilot’s Notes and Flight Engineer’s Notes for Lincoln. There were 52 pages covering basic engineering systems and how to fly the aircraft. The first page said “Pilot’s checklist” and started with “Dinghy external release….Secure” The list covered the walk around as well as numerous other items and culminated in item No 158 “Pitot Heat….Cover on” It was meant for aircrew to study but considered far too lengthy to use on the ground and in the air. As I said before, in those days we scanned left to right.
Now Commanding Officers are busy people what with holding parades, charging airmen for disorderly conduct like being smashed out of their mind when on duty, entertaining big brass from Headquarters and all the other responsibilities pertaining to running a squadron of aeroplanes. Most CO’s don’t get time to read Pilots Notes and to sit in a 50 degree C hot cockpit learning left to right scans is simply not on. The aim is to get airborne as soon as practicable and cool down with the windows open at low level. That was for the Lincoln, anyway.
So after I had walked the new CO around the external inspection of the Lincoln, we hauled our parachutes and Mae Wests (google it) up the long ladder that went up to the escape hatch in the nose and I asked Big Julie to take the pilot’s seat. I should have explained about the expression Big Julie – sorry about that. The call-sign of each Lincoln was JC plus another letter. Hence our aircraft was Juliet Charlie Sierra. The CO had a slight speech impediment in that he tended to slur the word `Juliet` and it came out as Julie. It was a no-brainer that he was soon given the nickname of “Big Julie” - behind his back of course. Anyway, by the time he took his seat and worked out where the park brake and bomb door lever were located it was not long before the tropical sun shining through the glass-house cockpit area had our flying suits, flying helmets and underwear running with sweat and no amount of deodorant could disguise the whiff of hairy underarms. I used to wonder why the Brits were called Pongo’s and now I knew. British designed aircraft had that certain odour. I preferred the hydraulic oil smell of a Dakota cockpit.
I started my instructor spiel with “Now sir, we start with a left to right scan.” Big Julie arced up – his moustache bristling. “Where’s the check list, Flight Lieutenant”?
“Check List, Sir?” I replied. “We don’t use a checklist in Lincolns – it’s all up here” I said, pointing to my head with one finger. Jeez -the old bugger is dead serious, I thought. Big Julie unstrapped and said “This squadron is grounded until you have a checklist.” He had been used to reading checklists in the USAF and couldn’t believe that an aircraft as big as a Lincoln didn’t have a checklist. With that, we all (that included the radio operator) clambered back down the ladder to the hot tarmac while I went away to dream up a checklist.
I had never used a checklist before, let alone design one, so quickly went through the Pilot’s Notes Lincoln and copied out on a sheet of paper all the checklist items that were in the first three pages. There were 158 items. The next day, after I had spent hours on the ancient roneo machine copying checklist pages for all squadron pilots (22 of them), I knocked on the door of Big Julie’s office and suggested we go flying with the new checklist. I didn’t tell him that the squadron pilots were giving me dark looks after reading the 158 challenge and response checklist items.
My log book shows that on 8 June 1959, Wing Commander Cy Greenwood (aka Big Julie) CO of No 10 (Maritime Reconnaissance) Squadron, and Flt Lt QFI Centaurus, strapped in to Lincoln A73-66 and prepared for dual familiarisation Conversion Exercise 1. It was a typical hot and humid Townsville day. I started to read from my laboriously typed three page checklist. Admittedly, the first 36 items consisted of the pre-flight walk around so I skipped that. Then I started the cockpit checklist at item 107 which was ignition switches off and waited for Big Julie to respond to my challenge. He glared at me and asked what the hell was he supposed to reply. I said you respond by saying “Ignition switches…Off”, SIR. Although I was the instructor, one always addressed a senior officer as Sir. By now I could sense the temperature was rising in the cockpit and it wasn’t just the sun shining through the glasshouse. A couple of minutes later, I had just read out item Number 123 which said “Adjust head-set and check with crew” when the Old Man said “STOP. Throw away that bloody checklist and show me the left to right scan”
Much to the relief of the other squadron pilots the remainder of the Lincoln checklists were consigned to the rubbish bin and the subject was never raised again.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have written the normal procedures (and emergency) for a certified general aviation aircraft for the AFM/POH and it is not quite so simple as it may seem.
I am of similar mind to Centaurus and approached the task with a brief to KISS, vital stuff only, but make sure to include and not contravene engine manufacturers operating manual procedures etc. also tried to ensure flow and largely succeeded. one AFM is about 10 revisions down stream and all normal and emergency procedures have become disjointed and convoluted as succeeding engineering staff have improved them to s state of almost being unusable.
I complained that they had seated to be useful as a pilot procedural aid and was reminded that the POH was an engineering controlled document required for certification and had nothing to do with the pilot.
Even the amplified procedures were tampered with and improved by a senior engineer who altered my original take off procedure from rotate at Vr, achieve Vtoss by 50ft Agl, to - do not raise the nose wheel until VToss.. That one got put back fairly quick and we routinely review the AFMs for our product range, but is it a losing battle I am afraid.
Early days I would produce a set of checklists ( exactly from the AFM/POH ) and laminate them with normal proc one side on white pages and emergency proc on other side on Pink appear with Red striped border on the other. Ok for several years until our beloved QA manager insisted that we must discontinue this practice as it conflicted with the CASA requirement that the sole source of procedural information was the actual AFM itself and even exact copies were not acceptanble no matter how convenient they may be.
It doesn't matter how hard you try, some smart arsed little snot with a degree and a massive sense of self importance will reduce real standards as best they can.
40 years as a pilot and over 25 years as a grade one instructor is not of any value when confronted by an engineer with asbergers syndrome.
StilL have most of my stuff in there, buried, occasionally tidied up, but it's a losing battle.
New type coming on so have to get at it before they stuff it up completely. Doing OK sor far but not holding my breath.
Flow brevity and simplicity. Keep to the essentials. I'll do my best.
Sigh!
HD
I am of similar mind to Centaurus and approached the task with a brief to KISS, vital stuff only, but make sure to include and not contravene engine manufacturers operating manual procedures etc. also tried to ensure flow and largely succeeded. one AFM is about 10 revisions down stream and all normal and emergency procedures have become disjointed and convoluted as succeeding engineering staff have improved them to s state of almost being unusable.
I complained that they had seated to be useful as a pilot procedural aid and was reminded that the POH was an engineering controlled document required for certification and had nothing to do with the pilot.
Even the amplified procedures were tampered with and improved by a senior engineer who altered my original take off procedure from rotate at Vr, achieve Vtoss by 50ft Agl, to - do not raise the nose wheel until VToss.. That one got put back fairly quick and we routinely review the AFMs for our product range, but is it a losing battle I am afraid.
Early days I would produce a set of checklists ( exactly from the AFM/POH ) and laminate them with normal proc one side on white pages and emergency proc on other side on Pink appear with Red striped border on the other. Ok for several years until our beloved QA manager insisted that we must discontinue this practice as it conflicted with the CASA requirement that the sole source of procedural information was the actual AFM itself and even exact copies were not acceptanble no matter how convenient they may be.
It doesn't matter how hard you try, some smart arsed little snot with a degree and a massive sense of self importance will reduce real standards as best they can.
40 years as a pilot and over 25 years as a grade one instructor is not of any value when confronted by an engineer with asbergers syndrome.
StilL have most of my stuff in there, buried, occasionally tidied up, but it's a losing battle.
New type coming on so have to get at it before they stuff it up completely. Doing OK sor far but not holding my breath.
Flow brevity and simplicity. Keep to the essentials. I'll do my best.
Sigh!
HD
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus,
Not long since your last tilt at this windmill:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...p-lookout.html
HD
Not long since your last tilt at this windmill:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...p-lookout.html
HD
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not long since your last tilt at this windmill:
Centaurus has been passing on knowledge for quite some time, and it all remains relevant, even though some may be repeated, which by the way, has not stopped some very experienced Airline guys joining the discussion.
Anyway, I for one see value...
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when the cessna checklists thread was running ad nauseum I looked at some of the lengthy checklists and thought they had to be kidding. but I said nothing.
on one of them the guy was supposed to apply carby heat and quite some time later take it off. so all that time the engine is running on the ground with the air filter bypassed. but I said nothing.
I use ROGER and FTFA, thats all.
on start Revs, Oil, Gyro, Electrics, Radio.
for all the rest it is FTFA, fly the firkin aeroplane.
on one of them the guy was supposed to apply carby heat and quite some time later take it off. so all that time the engine is running on the ground with the air filter bypassed. but I said nothing.
I use ROGER and FTFA, thats all.
on start Revs, Oil, Gyro, Electrics, Radio.
for all the rest it is FTFA, fly the firkin aeroplane.
I just use TMPFISCH and BUMFOAH and PUF.
Yes, I know the undercarriage is fixed, but sometimes it isn't. My mental check items for undercarraige are:
"undercarriage welded down" for fixed gear aircraft or "Undercarriage selected down (with hand remaining on the switch) until three greens undercarriage down".
Yes, I know the undercarriage is fixed, but sometimes it isn't. My mental check items for undercarraige are:
"undercarriage welded down" for fixed gear aircraft or "Undercarriage selected down (with hand remaining on the switch) until three greens undercarriage down".
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, in many FOI's eyes, the checklist should be verbatim from the POH/AFM. After all the aircraft got certified didn't it? Surely the manufacturer knows what they're talking about?
What this creates is monotonous, lengthy checklists that ultimately don't get shown much homage, from single pilot crews at least. In my time of dealing with CASA on flight check system matters the company had established an abbreviated checklist for use on the flight deck. It was scans and flows followed by a short checklist. In conjunction with this checklist (and also forming part of the flight check system) was an expanded checklist that detailed what was covered by each item of the abbreviated checklist. Both checklists lived in the aircraft though the expanded only really came out during training and checks. Thankfully at the time the FOI I dealt with was very much in agreement with the philosophy and a firm believer in scans and flows (ex airline type with many years of upper echelon GA prior).
Interestingly the FOI that looks after my current company insisted on the checklists being AFM verbatim (and they're rubbish). I hazard a guess it's because (and I'm not having a go) he's neither qualified or experienced enough to approve anything other than what's in the AFM (and yes I am aware of the legal requirements and possible ramifications to the FOI).
D
What this creates is monotonous, lengthy checklists that ultimately don't get shown much homage, from single pilot crews at least. In my time of dealing with CASA on flight check system matters the company had established an abbreviated checklist for use on the flight deck. It was scans and flows followed by a short checklist. In conjunction with this checklist (and also forming part of the flight check system) was an expanded checklist that detailed what was covered by each item of the abbreviated checklist. Both checklists lived in the aircraft though the expanded only really came out during training and checks. Thankfully at the time the FOI I dealt with was very much in agreement with the philosophy and a firm believer in scans and flows (ex airline type with many years of upper echelon GA prior).
Interestingly the FOI that looks after my current company insisted on the checklists being AFM verbatim (and they're rubbish). I hazard a guess it's because (and I'm not having a go) he's neither qualified or experienced enough to approve anything other than what's in the AFM (and yes I am aware of the legal requirements and possible ramifications to the FOI).
D
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
defenestrator,
wholehearted agree
Quote: Extract from linked CASA ATO Manual:
"Checklists should be kept as short as practical to limit diversion of attention or “head down” while carrying out the checklist
• The addition of unnecessary items could be a distraction and should be removed
• Items on a checklist not required for a specific aircraft should be removed or clearly identified to alert crew the equipment is not fitted.
Seems clear enough to me. Centaurus has a point".
Unfortunately FOI's dont study their own AOCM.
FOI's also dont really understand what is in the flight manual are NOT checklists but are procedures (In the case of cessna read the page heading."Normal Operating Procedures").
The FAA also has a requirement to approve checklists, one of their officers told me if you presented them with the flight manual procedures as a checklist it would be rejected.
Almost all Cessna flight manuals give a procedure for take off and a procedure for landing, written in a checklist format. Are CAsA seriously suggesting that the PNF should be reading these and the PIC responding as the aircraft hurls down the runway?
All major airliners now operate with scan flow Check systems, and very short kill item checklists. Why? because its safer.
The philosophy in the USA is the FM "procedures" must be adhered to, the "checklist" is another matter.
There is an FOI who resides in a country NSW centre who is notorious for his opinionated obstruction when it comes to FCOMS, PART B's or alternative flight manuals.
Whatever you want to call them they nearly all contain a statement in the opening paragraph "Notwithstanding anything contained in this manual the AFM takes precedence"
Which sort of begs the question, what are these manuals for?
Other than to drive CP's insane trying to get them approved oops accepted.
Generally the CP finishes up having to accept what he knows will at best be unworkable and at worst unsafe.
He/she of course must bear full responsibility, CAsA on the other hand accepts none, "we accept, we dont approve" (Bul..sh.t!! they heavily influence the contents of these manuals, which largely contains vast amounts of the AFM cut and pasted and other procedures formented in the minds of unqualified and inexperienced FOI's, I know of one instance where an FOI, not even type rated on the aircraft, issued an NCN against an aircrew following flight manual procedures, because he though his way was the way to go. Imagine what the lawyers would make of that if it ever came down to a blame game?)
The answer to this is to seek manufacturer "No objection" to a "check System".
The system should explain your scan flow, scrupliously following the AFM procedures, Abbreviated cockpit "Checklists" and an expansion of these to explain the how's and whyfors.
The manufacturers are very accomodating and will generally issue a NOC.
You then have something that works and CAsA will find hard to not accept because it puts the liability back on them.
Unfortunately the new paradigm of pilots flying to scripts being actively promoted by CAsA is fraught with danger. You cannot micro manage flying operation from behind a desk at Fort Fumble, a PIC is in essence a manager of his aircraft, whether its a 747 or a tiger moth, at some stage they need people to get off their backs and let them get on with it.
wholehearted agree
Quote: Extract from linked CASA ATO Manual:
"Checklists should be kept as short as practical to limit diversion of attention or “head down” while carrying out the checklist
• The addition of unnecessary items could be a distraction and should be removed
• Items on a checklist not required for a specific aircraft should be removed or clearly identified to alert crew the equipment is not fitted.
Seems clear enough to me. Centaurus has a point".
Unfortunately FOI's dont study their own AOCM.
FOI's also dont really understand what is in the flight manual are NOT checklists but are procedures (In the case of cessna read the page heading."Normal Operating Procedures").
The FAA also has a requirement to approve checklists, one of their officers told me if you presented them with the flight manual procedures as a checklist it would be rejected.
Almost all Cessna flight manuals give a procedure for take off and a procedure for landing, written in a checklist format. Are CAsA seriously suggesting that the PNF should be reading these and the PIC responding as the aircraft hurls down the runway?
All major airliners now operate with scan flow Check systems, and very short kill item checklists. Why? because its safer.
The philosophy in the USA is the FM "procedures" must be adhered to, the "checklist" is another matter.
There is an FOI who resides in a country NSW centre who is notorious for his opinionated obstruction when it comes to FCOMS, PART B's or alternative flight manuals.
Whatever you want to call them they nearly all contain a statement in the opening paragraph "Notwithstanding anything contained in this manual the AFM takes precedence"
Which sort of begs the question, what are these manuals for?
Other than to drive CP's insane trying to get them approved oops accepted.
Generally the CP finishes up having to accept what he knows will at best be unworkable and at worst unsafe.
He/she of course must bear full responsibility, CAsA on the other hand accepts none, "we accept, we dont approve" (Bul..sh.t!! they heavily influence the contents of these manuals, which largely contains vast amounts of the AFM cut and pasted and other procedures formented in the minds of unqualified and inexperienced FOI's, I know of one instance where an FOI, not even type rated on the aircraft, issued an NCN against an aircrew following flight manual procedures, because he though his way was the way to go. Imagine what the lawyers would make of that if it ever came down to a blame game?)
The answer to this is to seek manufacturer "No objection" to a "check System".
The system should explain your scan flow, scrupliously following the AFM procedures, Abbreviated cockpit "Checklists" and an expansion of these to explain the how's and whyfors.
The manufacturers are very accomodating and will generally issue a NOC.
You then have something that works and CAsA will find hard to not accept because it puts the liability back on them.
Unfortunately the new paradigm of pilots flying to scripts being actively promoted by CAsA is fraught with danger. You cannot micro manage flying operation from behind a desk at Fort Fumble, a PIC is in essence a manager of his aircraft, whether its a 747 or a tiger moth, at some stage they need people to get off their backs and let them get on with it.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The term "downwind checks" is fraught with danger, implying no pre-landing check is required for a straight in approach. Using the term pre-landing checks avoids any confusion. IMHO
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Defenestrator / Thorn Bird.
Agree 100% - the crap that is required to be checked by CASA mandated use of GA manufactures procedures lists takes the emphasis away from the real killer items - completely defeating the purpose of the checklist in the first place.
The one I can't get over is the exemptions for the requirements for a CAR 232 Flight Check System to be approved by CASA under EX38/2004.
Is anyone able to come up with a rational explanation as to why a Caravan is so dangerous that it requires formal check system approval when heavier piston twins and single engine turbine helicopters don't?
Agree 100% - the crap that is required to be checked by CASA mandated use of GA manufactures procedures lists takes the emphasis away from the real killer items - completely defeating the purpose of the checklist in the first place.
The one I can't get over is the exemptions for the requirements for a CAR 232 Flight Check System to be approved by CASA under EX38/2004.
CASA has, by Instrument Number CASA EX38/2004 (the exemption), exempted some
aircraft from the requirement to obtain CASA approval of FCS required by CAR
232(2). This instrument does not exempt operators from the requirement to
establish and use a FCS, only the requirement for CASA to approve that system.
The following aircraft do not require CASA approval of a FCS:
• Single and multi-engine piston engine aircraft not above 5700 kg MTOW and
not involved in RPT operations
• Aircraft engaged in agricultural operations
• Aircraft engaged in private operations
• Single turbine engine helicopters certified in the normal category and not
involved in RPT operations
• Hot air balloons.
aircraft from the requirement to obtain CASA approval of FCS required by CAR
232(2). This instrument does not exempt operators from the requirement to
establish and use a FCS, only the requirement for CASA to approve that system.
The following aircraft do not require CASA approval of a FCS:
• Single and multi-engine piston engine aircraft not above 5700 kg MTOW and
not involved in RPT operations
• Aircraft engaged in agricultural operations
• Aircraft engaged in private operations
• Single turbine engine helicopters certified in the normal category and not
involved in RPT operations
• Hot air balloons.
Is anyone able to come up with a rational explanation as to why a Caravan is so dangerous that it requires formal check system approval when heavier piston twins and single engine turbine helicopters don't?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
magrad,
A "low time pilot who thinks they are bullet proof" doesn't design an operator's checklist - the chief pilot does.
Thorn Bird explains the problems with 232 approvals extremely well. The type of pilots you refer to are the most likely to make up their own procedures if the operator's system is rediculously unwieldy and unworkable as a result of a FIO's refusal to accept a practical and safe system.
A "low time pilot who thinks they are bullet proof" doesn't design an operator's checklist - the chief pilot does.
Thorn Bird explains the problems with 232 approvals extremely well. The type of pilots you refer to are the most likely to make up their own procedures if the operator's system is rediculously unwieldy and unworkable as a result of a FIO's refusal to accept a practical and safe system.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Werbil,
You have me wrong. As per my first post on this subject. I agree, an overly extensive check list is counter productive. Checklists are just that, a check is conducted after a flow has been conducted on each particular phase of flight dependent on the complexity of the aircraft involved.
Many POH checklists are cumbersome and seem more for litigation resolving purposes than common sense.
A flow can be done in many different ways. Dependent on how it is written and resolved in the Operations Manual by the CP.
If the Ops Man is not written well or inconclusively it can result in misuse of a checklist to the point where safety is now reduced.
My statement was aimed at those times when a low time pilot goes outside what has been written for the sake of ease. The other side is that the checklist is too complex and includes items that are not "gotcha" items, this reduces the effectiveness of the check list and may end with the list not being used at the completion of a flow but as a shopping list.
I will stop now as it is taking both hands to type, thus leaving a total of zero hands to operate my beer stubby. After hours of course.
Safe flying.
You have me wrong. As per my first post on this subject. I agree, an overly extensive check list is counter productive. Checklists are just that, a check is conducted after a flow has been conducted on each particular phase of flight dependent on the complexity of the aircraft involved.
Many POH checklists are cumbersome and seem more for litigation resolving purposes than common sense.
A flow can be done in many different ways. Dependent on how it is written and resolved in the Operations Manual by the CP.
If the Ops Man is not written well or inconclusively it can result in misuse of a checklist to the point where safety is now reduced.
My statement was aimed at those times when a low time pilot goes outside what has been written for the sake of ease. The other side is that the checklist is too complex and includes items that are not "gotcha" items, this reduces the effectiveness of the check list and may end with the list not being used at the completion of a flow but as a shopping list.
I will stop now as it is taking both hands to type, thus leaving a total of zero hands to operate my beer stubby. After hours of course.
Safe flying.
Thread Starter
In another era, a company I worked for hired a former Boeing Instructor Pilot who had been involved in the original Boeing 737 design in 1967. In fact his signature appears on the original Boeing 737 Flight crew Training Manual.
He accompanied the first 737 delivery flight to the operator's island base and for the next few weeks observed many line flights. Soon after he arrived he noticed that the chief pilot at the time had set about to change the original Boeing checklist by adding several more items. Asked why he had made the changes, the chief pilot said he felt some items were important and which he believed should have been included in the original Boeing design planning. They were minor additions but nevertheless made for extra checklist reading.
The Boeing instructor pilot disagreed with the chief pilot's reasons for adding extra items to the Before Start Checks. He said when the FAA approved the B737 operation for a two pilot operation, the number of physical hand movements by each crew member and also eye movements, were limited to a certain figure - otherwise a flight engineer would have to be included as must be part of the crew. The Boeing 727 was one example of the carriage of a flight engineer. Which is why Boeing automated some systems in the 737 to reduce pilot checklist work load. The pressurisation system and seat belts function for example.
Also Boeing, when designing the checklist items, took into account experience from previous accident and incident reports, where faulty checklist design was found to be a contributory factor. The additional items that the chief pilot thought would a be a good idea based upon previous aircraft he had trained on, exceeded the Boeing/FAA limit for a two pilot operation. The Boeing instructor pilot was right and said in good humour that the company should ground its aircraft until the checklists met the FAA criteria.
In some GA flying schools, it is common to see lengthy and superfluous checklists designed by various CFI's that do nothing for flight safety but that are intended to be used as a cheat-sheet or aide-memoir for student pilots by teaching them what comes next and thus fly by numbers. In turn, some of these students eventually become new flying instructors with minimal flying experience and the cycle repeats itself. There is something to be said for learning from corporate history.
He accompanied the first 737 delivery flight to the operator's island base and for the next few weeks observed many line flights. Soon after he arrived he noticed that the chief pilot at the time had set about to change the original Boeing checklist by adding several more items. Asked why he had made the changes, the chief pilot said he felt some items were important and which he believed should have been included in the original Boeing design planning. They were minor additions but nevertheless made for extra checklist reading.
The Boeing instructor pilot disagreed with the chief pilot's reasons for adding extra items to the Before Start Checks. He said when the FAA approved the B737 operation for a two pilot operation, the number of physical hand movements by each crew member and also eye movements, were limited to a certain figure - otherwise a flight engineer would have to be included as must be part of the crew. The Boeing 727 was one example of the carriage of a flight engineer. Which is why Boeing automated some systems in the 737 to reduce pilot checklist work load. The pressurisation system and seat belts function for example.
Also Boeing, when designing the checklist items, took into account experience from previous accident and incident reports, where faulty checklist design was found to be a contributory factor. The additional items that the chief pilot thought would a be a good idea based upon previous aircraft he had trained on, exceeded the Boeing/FAA limit for a two pilot operation. The Boeing instructor pilot was right and said in good humour that the company should ground its aircraft until the checklists met the FAA criteria.
In some GA flying schools, it is common to see lengthy and superfluous checklists designed by various CFI's that do nothing for flight safety but that are intended to be used as a cheat-sheet or aide-memoir for student pilots by teaching them what comes next and thus fly by numbers. In turn, some of these students eventually become new flying instructors with minimal flying experience and the cycle repeats itself. There is something to be said for learning from corporate history.
Last edited by Centaurus; 6th Mar 2015 at 06:23.
Centaurus
I - and I anticipate many others - would value enormously your thoughts on the 'FEDEX' accident: http://asndata.aviation-safety.net/r...722_N497FE.pdf
Thread drift? Maybe. But maybe not.
(But I will understand completely if you'd prefer not to be seen to 'side' one way or another in the ongoing CVD controversy.)
I - and I anticipate many others - would value enormously your thoughts on the 'FEDEX' accident: http://asndata.aviation-safety.net/r...722_N497FE.pdf
Thread drift? Maybe. But maybe not.
(But I will understand completely if you'd prefer not to be seen to 'side' one way or another in the ongoing CVD controversy.)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after a lot of flying at Bankstown, and all over NSW, i have decided to come up with a more relevant single engine fixed gear aircraft prelanding/downwind check.
1.. seatbelts secure.
2 radio frequency correct
3 correct radio calls made
4. correct runway in use.
5. feet off the brakes.
done.
If you have made it to the downwind/ end of flight phase of your flight, im pretty sure things like gear down and welded, switches on both etc, are pretty much where they should be for landing.
1.. seatbelts secure.
2 radio frequency correct
3 correct radio calls made
4. correct runway in use.
5. feet off the brakes.
done.
If you have made it to the downwind/ end of flight phase of your flight, im pretty sure things like gear down and welded, switches on both etc, are pretty much where they should be for landing.
For my bugsmasher, to get it airborne:
Fuel on
Controls free
Flaps and trim set
Start engine, warm up, take off, have fun
For landing:
Flaps set
Carb heat if I think it is needed
After landing:
Switch everything off, drink beer
None of which is written on a checklist.
But for the big boys' toys, sorry CASA and company gurus, in the future you WILL use the manufacturer checklist.
These are not necessarily the ideal, but they are the only ones that will stand up at the subsequent court of enquiry.
Fuel on
Controls free
Flaps and trim set
Start engine, warm up, take off, have fun
For landing:
Flaps set
Carb heat if I think it is needed
After landing:
Switch everything off, drink beer
None of which is written on a checklist.
But for the big boys' toys, sorry CASA and company gurus, in the future you WILL use the manufacturer checklist.
These are not necessarily the ideal, but they are the only ones that will stand up at the subsequent court of enquiry.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, has buried his most relevant point into his tales.
You can use whatever list you Like, or are told to use. But unless you understand what each item on the list (written or memorised) is calling for, the whole excersize is superflous. (ok the spelling of big words is escaping me tonite, but i'm sure you can interpolate)
TMPFISCH and BUMFOH carry me very well. I fly a variety of types, and they serve me well. The U in the BUMFOH, I have changed how i approach it.
It is a challenge to myself to confirm what type of legs my plane has...by the time you are running the BUMFOH, you should have your legs out anyway.
When flying crashna's i MAKE the person in the opposite seat look out and confirm they can see a wheel....for non pilot types it makes them feel important to the operation...to pilot types, i hope it shows them that i am paying attention.
I'm sure one day, i will graduate to a type that I need to work with written checklists, but for now the flying school mantra is covering what I need, so i will stick with it.
Cheers
Jas
You can use whatever list you Like, or are told to use. But unless you understand what each item on the list (written or memorised) is calling for, the whole excersize is superflous. (ok the spelling of big words is escaping me tonite, but i'm sure you can interpolate)
TMPFISCH and BUMFOH carry me very well. I fly a variety of types, and they serve me well. The U in the BUMFOH, I have changed how i approach it.
It is a challenge to myself to confirm what type of legs my plane has...by the time you are running the BUMFOH, you should have your legs out anyway.
When flying crashna's i MAKE the person in the opposite seat look out and confirm they can see a wheel....for non pilot types it makes them feel important to the operation...to pilot types, i hope it shows them that i am paying attention.
I'm sure one day, i will graduate to a type that I need to work with written checklists, but for now the flying school mantra is covering what I need, so i will stick with it.
Cheers
Jas
1.. seatbelts secure.
2 radio frequency correct
3 correct radio calls made
4. correct runway in use.
5. feet off the brakes.
2 radio frequency correct
3 correct radio calls made
4. correct runway in use.
5. feet off the brakes.
With the very greatest of respect, I would suggest that, if you need a Check List for any of the above, you should consider whether you should be flying.
Checklists should be confined to absolutely vital actions --- the kind of things that, if you don't do them, can result in damage or disaster to the aeroplane and anybody in or under it.
As has been said time and again on this thread, by people who know what they are talking about ( and that seldom includes CASA FOIs),do not confuse procedures for various phases of flight with vital actions checklists.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 9th Mar 2015 at 07:35. Reason: typo
