Checklists
Moderator
Aircraft moving - do checks from memory
Aircraft stationary - use checklist or similar
Aircraft stationary - use checklist or similar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have an aircraft, which has a checklist item which requires that the pilot confirm that the wheels are up for landing. Would you want to do this as a checklist item, or just rely on memory?
Can't you just combine this one with the "water rudders up" memory item?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never heard of that in Canada. Is it a documented procedure elsewhere? Is is applicable to certain aircraft types?
Moderator
Can't you just combine this one with the "water rudders up" memory item?
FWIW
Really just for club type, simple singles.
So, in all seriousness... My job is to create the Flight Manual Supplement for a modification to an aircraft. Some of these aircraft are "simple" (Cessna 150, 172, PA 28, Champ, Citabria) for example. That FMS might include a checklist. How do I convince pilots to use it?
I've argued for years with Transport Canada staff, that in lieu of an FMS, or checklist, I would rather specify a placard (harder to lose or ignore), but they want an FMS/checklist, as that is what the design requirements specify. What's the point of my creating these if everyone states that they ignore them?
I read here many references to "spam cans" and poorly maintained aircraft, as if to suggest that this group of really excellent pilots expect nothing but the very safest and best when it comes to the aircraft they fly. Yet I do a thorough job, and document the work done to the aircraft, which might include an FMS, or revised checklist, and I'm getting told here that:
any pilot in the Chipmunk who at any stage needed to refer to a check list, I'd watch him like a hawk, ring my insurance broker, and make a note not to fly with him again!
I can imagine the horror story here now: "The bloody Chipmunk had a modified fuel system! So he forced landed it because he did not know about the extra fuel tank! Can you imagine the nerve of someone modifying the plane, and not providing instructions on how the fuel system worked!!!".
Don't laugh, a C 150 with a modified fuel system (nothing to do with me) was force landed out of fuel, with one tank still full ('cause the pilot could not figure out how to use the fuel). I was called to do a proper approval of the system after the fact.
Would the contributors here please suggest to me what they think is the appropriate threshold where it's worth them actually considering/using the content of an FMS or checklist? How "un simple" does the modification have to be to warrant instructions to the pilot? Or should I, the person delegated to approve it, decide on behalf of the pilot, using the prevailing design standards for reference?
I'm getting the impression that those pilots who want the "perfectly maintained" plane, are not really interested in reading what needs to be done to fly it safely....
Help me out here....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got 45 hours on the same aircraft now - all accrued in the past 12 months.
I'd be really disappointed if I still needed to use a paper checklist on what is a very simple 1960's machine.
I'd be really disappointed if I still needed to use a paper checklist on what is a very simple 1960's machine.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are in danger of confusing the lack of use of a checklist to poor perpetration. Before flying any simple aircraft it is obviously necessary to read all supporting info, including the aircraft specific checklist if there is one. It is obviously necessary to understand if the fuel system is modified etc, and it may be necessary to write some notes on anything really odd. Most of this perpetration should be done hours or even days before first flight. The more you introduce complexity the more the case for the checklist gains credence, so disappearing Dunlop’s, amphibious floats and complex fuel would probably benefit from a list, but it is interesting that even with a list people still get it spectacularly wrong. a very simple aircraft with fixed gear, one tank, gravity feed, no flaps, no radio etc the case for a 20 item downwind check does not exist. If you fly one aircraft a lot and understand it then it is much safer to look out of the window more and think rather than reading a book in the cockpit oblivious as the world carries on around you.
Most flying school aircraft are flown with generic lists produced by commercial manufactures for say “Robin DR400” (I have one). Such a list has some benefit if you want to go on and fly B737’s and you need to get into the philosophy of big jets , but it adds little or nothing to flight safety in GA. A 16 year old air cadet that turned up for flying without having memorized his vital actions would not get to fly!
Rod1
Most flying school aircraft are flown with generic lists produced by commercial manufactures for say “Robin DR400” (I have one). Such a list has some benefit if you want to go on and fly B737’s and you need to get into the philosophy of big jets , but it adds little or nothing to flight safety in GA. A 16 year old air cadet that turned up for flying without having memorized his vital actions would not get to fly!
Rod1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 40
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW(For what it's worth) I agree with the point made about design or specification amendments (additional fuel tank etc) needing to have a checklist. But once that checklist for in the air is memorised along with FREDA, HASELL etc etc, would it not be treated like any other, i.e. memorising it at the risk of having to much "head in cockpit"?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) You are not allowed to have a modified fuel system on UK Chippys.
2) If you are flying any simple aeroplane with any mod that affects piloting, you really out to know about the mod and what it entails well before you strap it on, without having to resort to a check list.
2) If you are flying any simple aeroplane with any mod that affects piloting, you really out to know about the mod and what it entails well before you strap it on, without having to resort to a check list.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing nobody has mentioned yet is it is supposed to be a checklist, not a dolist. In theory, one does the necessary, then cleans up with the checklist to make sure nothing is missed. Following the finger down, or using a mnemonic, there's still a 'confirmation bias'. Probably still exists as a check, but perhaps less so.
I met this on final in an arrow, (re)checked the u/c - three greens, got to the end of the mnemonic, then realised that's only 2 greens. Turned out to be a bulb, but it provoked a go-around/full investigation/tower pass before finally putting it down. Still amazes me that I could 'see' three when there were only two.
For whatever it's worth, and PilotDAR's information, here's my approach - I'm not necessarily advocating, or defending. I'm a huge proponent of keeping eyes out of the window, this seems to work for me.
I hire, generally smallish SEP, including some retracts, and on the other end, decathlon/pitts. Recently mostly the latter, but when I was more regular I was mixing it a lot. Each aircraft was prepped by going through the flight manual thoroughly. I keep a small shirt pocket sized notebook, page per 'class' of aircraft - so something 'special' gets its own page. C172/PA28 get lumped into one page. An individual a/c with a significant mod/STC would get it's own page. Page gives approximate approach speeds, fuel peculiarities, salient points, anything different or important.
Mnemonics are generalised - one size fits all (e.g. prop pitch and U/c appear in the mnemonic whatever I'm flying, it's a memory prodder. Wheels? How are they, do I need to do anything with them.. etc. Pre-flight, review the page, and checklist depending on familiarity. In flight, pretty much entirely mnemonic - checklist is there if I need it.
I met this on final in an arrow, (re)checked the u/c - three greens, got to the end of the mnemonic, then realised that's only 2 greens. Turned out to be a bulb, but it provoked a go-around/full investigation/tower pass before finally putting it down. Still amazes me that I could 'see' three when there were only two.
For whatever it's worth, and PilotDAR's information, here's my approach - I'm not necessarily advocating, or defending. I'm a huge proponent of keeping eyes out of the window, this seems to work for me.
I hire, generally smallish SEP, including some retracts, and on the other end, decathlon/pitts. Recently mostly the latter, but when I was more regular I was mixing it a lot. Each aircraft was prepped by going through the flight manual thoroughly. I keep a small shirt pocket sized notebook, page per 'class' of aircraft - so something 'special' gets its own page. C172/PA28 get lumped into one page. An individual a/c with a significant mod/STC would get it's own page. Page gives approximate approach speeds, fuel peculiarities, salient points, anything different or important.
Mnemonics are generalised - one size fits all (e.g. prop pitch and U/c appear in the mnemonic whatever I'm flying, it's a memory prodder. Wheels? How are they, do I need to do anything with them.. etc. Pre-flight, review the page, and checklist depending on familiarity. In flight, pretty much entirely mnemonic - checklist is there if I need it.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR
FWIW - for what it's worth, if it was a serious question.
The point I was trying to make was that in a SPA, there are risks in getting too focussed inside the cockpit with checklists, cards or whatever. As a FI, it can be a bit of a job at times to ensure people look out of the windows enough, it's very tempting for students and PPLs to concentrate on the checks, sometimes to the detriment of lookout and situational awareness. So, I like to think that a lot of checks/procedures, once learned and committed to memory, can be done without reference to checklists.
I totally accept your point that pilots should of course be familiar with the systems of the particular aircraft they are flying and should have read the POH/FM.
I also agree with you that placards are probably a good idea, as they have the necessary information, but don't tend to give rise to the long periods of "head inside" that faffing around with kneeboards and checklists can.
FWIW - for what it's worth, if it was a serious question.
The point I was trying to make was that in a SPA, there are risks in getting too focussed inside the cockpit with checklists, cards or whatever. As a FI, it can be a bit of a job at times to ensure people look out of the windows enough, it's very tempting for students and PPLs to concentrate on the checks, sometimes to the detriment of lookout and situational awareness. So, I like to think that a lot of checks/procedures, once learned and committed to memory, can be done without reference to checklists.
I totally accept your point that pilots should of course be familiar with the systems of the particular aircraft they are flying and should have read the POH/FM.
I also agree with you that placards are probably a good idea, as they have the necessary information, but don't tend to give rise to the long periods of "head inside" that faffing around with kneeboards and checklists can.
Moderator
MrMum,
Sorry, yes, I just don't know all the acronyms (particularly UK flying club, and computer speak). I did start a thread a while back, suggesting that all these acronyms be listed (as I'm required to do on my all my reports), but few people contributed. Please help me out; SPA?
Please be assured that I know that you're talking about, 5K of my 6K+ hours would have been flown without ever looking at a checklist, and I'll do it again tomorrow. But, I cannot condone the "blanket" suggestion that a pilot should be able to fly without reference to one, even after studying the flight manual in advance of the flight. Worse, I really cannon condone references that a pilot who chooses to refer to a checklist is the lesser for it. How far do you extend this backward? If the pilot needs to review the flight manual, I'd say that the chances go way up that that pilot needs to refer to the checklist at certain phases in flight. They very certainly will have a very weak argument if they forget something 'cause they did not!
I opine that when a pilot can actually recite the content of the checklist for an aircraft, that pilot could present an argument that it need not be referred to via paper, in flight. The pre start to takeoff checklist for an MD 500 helicopter is about 40 items - depending upon the specific helicopter. All pretty new and different stuff for a fixed wing pilot like me. After the required type endorsement training, written exams, and then a 1900 mile flight in three days, I pretty well had it memorized, and holding the paper (really awkward in certain phases of flying a helicopter) seemed un-necessary. The pilot who type endorsed me did not pick up the paper. Can I argue to not pick up the paper in flight?
So taking it back to the original theme, how does a newer pilot know when he does not need to pick up the paper any more? I doubt that any one will ever commit that there is a phase in a pilot's progression on type, where the paper checklist can be discarded. I would never take that responsibility!
To me, if a pilot finds the combination of flying/watching for traffic, navigation/confirming position, doing radio communications, and also passing through phases of flight for which the use of a checklist is appropriate, too high a workload to manage, that pilot very certainly still needs to refer to a paper checklist - they are not flying ahead of the aircraft at all. If that pilto cannot appropriately share attention inside and out, they're either in too busy airspace, or in too complex and aircraft type for their skills.
Or, phrased differently, if you wonder if you need to read the paper checklist - you do!
Sorry, yes, I just don't know all the acronyms (particularly UK flying club, and computer speak). I did start a thread a while back, suggesting that all these acronyms be listed (as I'm required to do on my all my reports), but few people contributed. Please help me out; SPA?
Please be assured that I know that you're talking about, 5K of my 6K+ hours would have been flown without ever looking at a checklist, and I'll do it again tomorrow. But, I cannot condone the "blanket" suggestion that a pilot should be able to fly without reference to one, even after studying the flight manual in advance of the flight. Worse, I really cannon condone references that a pilot who chooses to refer to a checklist is the lesser for it. How far do you extend this backward? If the pilot needs to review the flight manual, I'd say that the chances go way up that that pilot needs to refer to the checklist at certain phases in flight. They very certainly will have a very weak argument if they forget something 'cause they did not!
I opine that when a pilot can actually recite the content of the checklist for an aircraft, that pilot could present an argument that it need not be referred to via paper, in flight. The pre start to takeoff checklist for an MD 500 helicopter is about 40 items - depending upon the specific helicopter. All pretty new and different stuff for a fixed wing pilot like me. After the required type endorsement training, written exams, and then a 1900 mile flight in three days, I pretty well had it memorized, and holding the paper (really awkward in certain phases of flying a helicopter) seemed un-necessary. The pilot who type endorsed me did not pick up the paper. Can I argue to not pick up the paper in flight?
So taking it back to the original theme, how does a newer pilot know when he does not need to pick up the paper any more? I doubt that any one will ever commit that there is a phase in a pilot's progression on type, where the paper checklist can be discarded. I would never take that responsibility!
To me, if a pilot finds the combination of flying/watching for traffic, navigation/confirming position, doing radio communications, and also passing through phases of flight for which the use of a checklist is appropriate, too high a workload to manage, that pilot very certainly still needs to refer to a paper checklist - they are not flying ahead of the aircraft at all. If that pilto cannot appropriately share attention inside and out, they're either in too busy airspace, or in too complex and aircraft type for their skills.
Or, phrased differently, if you wonder if you need to read the paper checklist - you do!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR
Your acronym thread was a great idea, especially for a newcomer to aviation and flying forums like myself. It was indeed a shame that there were not more contributions to the thread.
For SPA, I read Single Piston Aeroplane. But I could be wrong....
Your acronym thread was a great idea, especially for a newcomer to aviation and flying forums like myself. It was indeed a shame that there were not more contributions to the thread.
For SPA, I read Single Piston Aeroplane. But I could be wrong....
Moderator
Oh, so if an "SPA" = "Single Pilot Airplane", that could be any of a whole lot of aircraft up to a Piper Cheyenne, Twin Otter, or a few of the Cessna Citations then....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Behind a computer screen
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you do taxi checks from memory? If not, it would be prudent to be certain you've got wide empty taxiways before reading from the list. Pranging a wingtip is pretty bad, but at the same time but forgetting the wrong items on the pre take off checks can kill you. A lot of it is down to personal confidence. If I haven't flow a particular type for a while, I'll probably use the checklist on the ground when stationary and rely on memory checks in the air. It is interesting to see pilots of Single Pilot Aircraft progress from using checklists religiously upon initial conversion to not using them at all after a couple of years.
The after take off checks really should be from memory, whether flying privately or commercially. IMHO, there's too much going in in that stage of the flight to be too 'heads down'. Commercial pilots will do these from memory and probably (certainly if multi crew) read the checklist to check they've executed the necessary procedures. Sometimes, I get it a bit wrong and have shortened the life of landing lights and fuel pumps in Single Engine Piston aircraft, but that's probably not as bad as not seeing that non radio aircraft who's just turned crosswind...
It's important to think "where does my concentration need to be at this point?" If you've got the brakes on, not sat on the runway, not in a rush, I can't argue against using the checklist for the pre take off checks. Equally when shutting down, leaving the mags on can potentially ruin someone's day.
h
The after take off checks really should be from memory, whether flying privately or commercially. IMHO, there's too much going in in that stage of the flight to be too 'heads down'. Commercial pilots will do these from memory and probably (certainly if multi crew) read the checklist to check they've executed the necessary procedures. Sometimes, I get it a bit wrong and have shortened the life of landing lights and fuel pumps in Single Engine Piston aircraft, but that's probably not as bad as not seeing that non radio aircraft who's just turned crosswind...
It's important to think "where does my concentration need to be at this point?" If you've got the brakes on, not sat on the runway, not in a rush, I can't argue against using the checklist for the pre take off checks. Equally when shutting down, leaving the mags on can potentially ruin someone's day.
h
From the FAA Private Pilot PTS (Practical Test Standards);
So the "official" word is that it's a check list and not a do-list.
Your brother is an Engineer, that explains a lot, no pun intended.
Applicant's Use of Checklists
Throughout the practical test, the applicant is evaluated on the use of
an appropriate checklist. Proper use is dependent on the specific TASK
being evaluated. The situation may be such that the use of the
checklist, while accomplishing elements of an Objective, would be
either unsafe or impractical, especially in a single-pilot operation. In this
case, a review of the checklist after the elements have been
accomplished, would be appropriate. Division of attention and proper
visual scanning should be considered when using a checklist.
Throughout the practical test, the applicant is evaluated on the use of
an appropriate checklist. Proper use is dependent on the specific TASK
being evaluated. The situation may be such that the use of the
checklist, while accomplishing elements of an Objective, would be
either unsafe or impractical, especially in a single-pilot operation. In this
case, a review of the checklist after the elements have been
accomplished, would be appropriate. Division of attention and proper
visual scanning should be considered when using a checklist.
Your brother is an Engineer, that explains a lot, no pun intended.