Check List Design in GA aircraft - often superfluous
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a little bit of thread drift, however it has been mentioned above, so here goes!
The lack of airmanship training these days is amazing when compared to that of 30 or 40 plus years ago.
The airmanship net was very large and when I learnt to fly. It covered such things as placing the chocks, dressing the prop, crossing the seat belts and cleaning out any rubbish (including ashtrays back then) from the aircraft for the next flyer. Of course it goes much further than that to such things as keeping a good look out and other tasks that some consider essential. Do you really need a check list for that? I suggest in many cases it is both common sense (which is not that common) and good instructing that is lacking? I know CFI's these days that would not make a lower grade instructor in years gone by. This standard drift (down) is easy for us older folk to observer but it is difficult to impossible to pass this message on, even to younger instructors and even to some FOIs that think they know it all....
On a similar subject also mentioned above, the time to go solo is often used as a benchmark for both individuals and flying schools, both of which are obviously a factor. I recall at the school that I learnt at, all students had a senior instructor check at 10 hours so as to assess progress but mainly to product check the instructor. I might add that most students at that time went sold within 10 +/- 2 or 3 hrs. In fact back then it was not uncommon for some full time students to go solo at 4.5 hrs (RAAF AIRTC cadets).
I recall doing my restricted PPL at around 33 hours which I recall was about average at that time. I just wonder what has changed when we see some students not progressing in much the same timeline. Is the air different? No, I suspect it is the culture that now exists in the flying schools and within the instructor fraternity.
As for check lists.... TMPFISCH and BUMFH has served me well in the smaller GA aircraft that I have flown. More complex types often had a roller blind or other type on the glare shield which I felt was quite appropriate.
The lack of airmanship training these days is amazing when compared to that of 30 or 40 plus years ago.
The airmanship net was very large and when I learnt to fly. It covered such things as placing the chocks, dressing the prop, crossing the seat belts and cleaning out any rubbish (including ashtrays back then) from the aircraft for the next flyer. Of course it goes much further than that to such things as keeping a good look out and other tasks that some consider essential. Do you really need a check list for that? I suggest in many cases it is both common sense (which is not that common) and good instructing that is lacking? I know CFI's these days that would not make a lower grade instructor in years gone by. This standard drift (down) is easy for us older folk to observer but it is difficult to impossible to pass this message on, even to younger instructors and even to some FOIs that think they know it all....
On a similar subject also mentioned above, the time to go solo is often used as a benchmark for both individuals and flying schools, both of which are obviously a factor. I recall at the school that I learnt at, all students had a senior instructor check at 10 hours so as to assess progress but mainly to product check the instructor. I might add that most students at that time went sold within 10 +/- 2 or 3 hrs. In fact back then it was not uncommon for some full time students to go solo at 4.5 hrs (RAAF AIRTC cadets).
I recall doing my restricted PPL at around 33 hours which I recall was about average at that time. I just wonder what has changed when we see some students not progressing in much the same timeline. Is the air different? No, I suspect it is the culture that now exists in the flying schools and within the instructor fraternity.
As for check lists.... TMPFISCH and BUMFH has served me well in the smaller GA aircraft that I have flown. More complex types often had a roller blind or other type on the glare shield which I felt was quite appropriate.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I recall doing my restricted PPL at around 33 hours which I recall was about average at that time. I just wonder what has changed when we see some students not progressing in much the same timeline. Is the air different? No, I suspect it is the culture that now exists in the flying schools and within the instructor fraternity."
Aww Triadic lets be fair here. Back then the focus was on teaching, today its focused on Box Ticking. I think the ratio is somewhere around 50:50 today.
Half hour of teaching followed by a half hour of box ticking. A bit of consideration for the poor instructors, RSI is a very common malady for instructors, writers cramp even more so. First item on the checklist:
1. Mentholatum Deep heat tube...............................STOWED.
I believe a lot of the angst regarding checklists is driven by the legal implications. Liability, and everything that goes with it.
On the commercial side of things checklists must be approved by CAsA which puts them in the gun should anything go wrong. "Safety" as we all know comes a very poor second to liability.
Pity the poor FOI's who have to Vet proposed Checklists. Many of them with no background or experience have to approve checklists for some fairly complex types. Their guidance comes from the AOCM section 7. It gives a lot of detail about how and what should be incorporated in a checklist but fails to give any leeway against what is contained in the AFM. I know of one company charged for sixteen hours of an FOI's time to "Check" the manufacturer supplied FAA approved QRH conformed with the AFM
Here's where the confusion comes.
For a lot of the more complex aircraft the AFM's lists are "Normal Operating Procedures". Procedures being the key word because that's what they are.
They are presented in a checklist kind of way, which our intrepid FOI's interpret as "if it looks like a checklist sounds like a checklist" its a checklist.
With no background or exposure in the real world who could blame them for insisting that checklists must match the AFM procedures lists, liability then falls on the manufacturer not on them or CAsA.
I have been told of 56 item taxi checklists for a light jet, which included advancing thrust to 80% for a couple of minutes, while trying to taxi, both pilots heads in when they should be heads out. A rather classic way of setting up an excursion somewhere, for which the pilots would ultimately be blamed.
CAR 242 calls for a "Check System" Which could be a procedural system of scan flow, complying with the AFM procedures, followed by a simple kill item checklist much the same as Boeing and Airbus does. The question is who takes responsibility for it?
One also has to consider that the content of AFM's for older aircraft was written thirty even 40 years ago and does not reflect modern research based design.
At the end of the day, no matter how checklists are presented or actioned or what their content is, the safety benefit of diligently using them far outweighs risks of not.
Aww Triadic lets be fair here. Back then the focus was on teaching, today its focused on Box Ticking. I think the ratio is somewhere around 50:50 today.
Half hour of teaching followed by a half hour of box ticking. A bit of consideration for the poor instructors, RSI is a very common malady for instructors, writers cramp even more so. First item on the checklist:
1. Mentholatum Deep heat tube...............................STOWED.
I believe a lot of the angst regarding checklists is driven by the legal implications. Liability, and everything that goes with it.
On the commercial side of things checklists must be approved by CAsA which puts them in the gun should anything go wrong. "Safety" as we all know comes a very poor second to liability.
Pity the poor FOI's who have to Vet proposed Checklists. Many of them with no background or experience have to approve checklists for some fairly complex types. Their guidance comes from the AOCM section 7. It gives a lot of detail about how and what should be incorporated in a checklist but fails to give any leeway against what is contained in the AFM. I know of one company charged for sixteen hours of an FOI's time to "Check" the manufacturer supplied FAA approved QRH conformed with the AFM
Here's where the confusion comes.
For a lot of the more complex aircraft the AFM's lists are "Normal Operating Procedures". Procedures being the key word because that's what they are.
They are presented in a checklist kind of way, which our intrepid FOI's interpret as "if it looks like a checklist sounds like a checklist" its a checklist.
With no background or exposure in the real world who could blame them for insisting that checklists must match the AFM procedures lists, liability then falls on the manufacturer not on them or CAsA.
I have been told of 56 item taxi checklists for a light jet, which included advancing thrust to 80% for a couple of minutes, while trying to taxi, both pilots heads in when they should be heads out. A rather classic way of setting up an excursion somewhere, for which the pilots would ultimately be blamed.
CAR 242 calls for a "Check System" Which could be a procedural system of scan flow, complying with the AFM procedures, followed by a simple kill item checklist much the same as Boeing and Airbus does. The question is who takes responsibility for it?
One also has to consider that the content of AFM's for older aircraft was written thirty even 40 years ago and does not reflect modern research based design.
At the end of the day, no matter how checklists are presented or actioned or what their content is, the safety benefit of diligently using them far outweighs risks of not.
Last edited by thorn bird; 28th Sep 2018 at 03:42.
I think it’s important to integrate checklist use into the flow of tasks in the cockpit.
According to the ATSB report the Kingair pilot at Essendon had a similar attitude to people in this thread (checklists are over the top, waste of time, don’t need em). It must feel good to be so wise.
But then he took off with the rudder trim mis-set and everyone died. The checklist could have prevented this.
According to the ATSB report the Kingair pilot at Essendon had a similar attitude to people in this thread (checklists are over the top, waste of time, don’t need em). It must feel good to be so wise.
But then he took off with the rudder trim mis-set and everyone died. The checklist could have prevented this.
Equally, diligent application of TMPFISCH (where T is Trim and P is expanded to include Pressurisation, H for 5 Hots etc) could work just as well as using a checklist that has about 20 ‘final’ items to be checked at or approaching the take off point. Beech checklist is an example of how NOT to do a checklist.
Years ago I did a MU 2 rating with a Swiss operator. There were checklists for before and after start and shut down only. At all times when the aircraft was in motion checks were done by scan and flow, and had to be known.
The rationale was that a single pilot in a busy environment needed to be heads up the whole time. It worked, but required discipline.
Years ago I did a MU 2 rating with a Swiss operator. There were checklists for before and after start and shut down only. At all times when the aircraft was in motion checks were done by scan and flow, and had to be known.
The rationale was that a single pilot in a busy environment needed to be heads up the whole time. It worked, but required discipline.
The checklist could have prevented this
In the course of sixty airline flights eight hundred ninety-nine deviations were observed (194 in checklist use, 391 in monitoring, and 314 in primary procedures).
https://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/f...010-216396.pdf
