I am really surprised that the question for a checklist does have this kind of discussion. In my eyes the issue is quite simple.

First: if I enter a plane, be it my own or a rented one, there has to be one in it by any regulations of the world I know (ok, sometimes in Africa, it was not, but that is a totally different story). Second: the checklist has to be the one which is part of the ARC inspection, so one time a year it is checked a checklist is on board and it is the correct one (item on the list for ARC, tyoical the one after original POH on board). Third: the only allowed checklist is the official one released by the manufacturer, maybe in a later revision, but often still the one with which the plane was delivered at first hand.

First reality: many times at ARC neither POH nor checklist were checked. Second reality: quite often neither the correct POH nor the correct checklist is on board. Third reality: the original documents are not the very best ones from nowadays perspective and it may be advisable to write an own version of the POH as well as a personal checklist, which is mainly the official one with some added features for things fit in the last x0 years.

My best way is to keep the original POH and checklist documents within the planelog and use my own. By this I am current on document features and do have the originals for ARC and ramp checks handy.

@27/09
just re-read the last couple of lines of my post:)
These Aircraft have proved to be far more durable than the makers ever envisaged.
The Spitfire was a short-life aircraft....it would either be written off or suprseded within ~ 5 years...so nopoint wasting resources building for a 10-year life.

The SIDS are showing wing-strut cracks and laminated -spar corrosion, among other issues....Perhaps, by the time the Reims versions entered production, someone realised the design was unbeatable and therefore the factory corrosion-proofed for an extended life.

Back on thread...My pilot friend had access to a 152, a 172 and an Aeronca Chief we mainly flew in the Chief . A simple,logical, progression around the aircraft covered everything from tyres to fuel-level No flaps, no electrics (Icom and battery-intercom) Armstrong starting.
Maybe it helped he was from an engineering background? (me,too)
NO CHECK LIST....but, even now, I could probably do the full routine up to lining-up...and i've never had a formal lesson :}
I don't remember a list for the Cessnas, either, but, as both our lives depended on it, it got the full beady eye treatment,including full flap extension, inspection. retraction......finally a check on full andfree controls before the start and run-up (repeated after power-check immediately before takeoff.)If there was a "gotcha" I never saw it.

This SID discussion is going round and round ... I had a review recently on more then a dozen of them and was shocked by the results - most of the owners paid extraordinary amounts of cash for them and did receive only checked lists as a result - no pictures, no videos, no real documentation. I then started to visit the maintenance organizations and check photos and docs on what they really did. First of all, almost everybody got ripped off by the companies. Many bills were mere street robbery and many, many people did not get half of what they paid for. What was presented as finding, was often poorly documented and where it was, it was quite often obviously unnecessary work done. Yes, the Cessna corrosion inspection is a good thing to do and in some few cases there were really potential things to stop, but the most of these findings are covered by ADs already. I also had the inspection done on my plane (Reims built) and as a result I am quite happy to know the plane is fine and free of corrosion, but we also had some preventive corrosion treatment to not have a problem in 10 years - fine with me and worth the money I spent, but that was about one third of the typical inspection costs charged. So people, do the Cessna corrosion inspection, but stay close when they do it, because even your old buddy workshop will try to rip you off.

Be careful with that....

The POH (as a "Flight Manual") is a document approved by the certifying authority for the aircraft design. Writing your own version, though perhaps entertaining, would not result in a document which had any legal basis from which to operate the aircraft. This theme extends to the checklist provided in the POH/Flight Manual - it is in the "Approved" section of the POH, and as such, would require reapproval if changed.

If the aircraft has "added features" which are properly approved (usually by STC) and installed, there would be an approved Flight Manual Supplement with these installations. That FMS might contain a supplemental checklist, which would be required to be followed.

Though I'm not aware of any regulation prohibiting writhing your own checklist (or I suppose POH), if you are not operating the aircraft with reference to the approved version, you're on thin ice for compliance (ramp check). I suppose if your home made checklist obviously exactly combines the relevant sum of approved checklists from the original aircraft and any approved mods, and the originals were still available for pilot reference, that would probably be looked upon favourably by authorities.

I did check with authorities before making my own checklist. They told me they are absolutely fine with personal checklists, as long as it contains only additions for cockpit procedures and you carry the original POH and checklist on board. At ramp check, they are only interested in the original ones. I even translated my original POH and made two personal copies to stick in the plane for friends unable to read english. So, personal checklists and POHs are just like any other novel book as long as you have the original documents handy.

Time then, for the really stupid question.

If, the 'authorities', and the manufacturer, deem it a necessity, or even mandatory, to have a 'checklist', to operate the aeroplane, then why is everyone debating not using it.

'My memory serves me well'. 'Waste of time'. 'If you are that stupid, you cant operate a simple type without a checklist, go take up golf'

Quote-unquote???

The authorities and manufacturer also require that sufficient fuel be carried for the intended flight, and people don't do that, so why would they carry and refer to the required checklist? The Canadian wording is the the approved checklist "be available" to the pilot (like fuel, I suppose) how the pilot uses it could be a different thing, but don't get caught in trouble not using it!

If you are using a home made or flying school made checklist, and something has been omitted, or confusion introduced by non approved additions, you, the pilot using that checklist, become responsible, not the person who wrote it!

Yes, I was required to have and use a paper copy of the checklist for my C 150 when I flew it for my CPL ride. (I had more than 2500 hours in that plane at that point). I exactly copied the one from the POH, and all was good. For those three or four flights, I used the checklist. When I flew an MD500 yesterday, the other pilot and I used the checklist (as I don't fly those very often).

@maxred: it is twofold, point one - every local authority under ICAO regulations requires the pilot to operate compliant with the operations defined by the planes manufacturer; point two: the manufacturer complied with manufacturing and permit to fly regulations by issuing checklists in their respective type POH and/or separate checklist documents.

If later changes apply, it is not expected by authorities to release a new POH, which would be then plane specific and no longer type specific, but to have some addendum of unspecific kind, so that all documents can be used as if they would have been the original issued POH/checklist in that case.

So, yes, it is useless to discuss POH or checklist, because they are part of the internationally agreed procedures to operate a plane correctly.
And further yes, in reality many people give a sh*t.

Chicken - I'm not going to repeat what's been said. No-one mandates I use a checklist in an L4 Cub, a Chipmunk, or even a Yak52 (quite a complex aeroplane). So what are you on about?

I think what is mandated is that there IS a checklist on board the aircraft.

What I think would be interesting to know is when you take a check ride, and you don't use a checklist, do you pass your check ride?

BTW: I am of the opinion that many items should be done via a "DO LIST" instead of a checklist. I AM NOT A FAN OF "FLOWS" to accomplish things. I have seen both methods and the most sure way of setting all switches prior to start is the "DO LIST".

"CHECK LISTS" make more sense while actually flying, moving etc.

IT seems to me that C150 types have a checklist printed on the sun visor. Piper had checklists printed on the instrument panel near the fuel gauges. But this is from memory as I have not flown either types this century. Or in the last 32 years.

As I said, the document called a checklist can be used in one of three ways...

Do - confirm

Read - Do

Challenge - Respond.


The first two are both potentially viable in light GA, and either can be built upon a flow, a written checklist, or a memorised mnemonic.


Incidentally

Standards Document 19 (A): Notes for the Guidance of Applicants taking the PPL Skill Test (Aeroplanes) | Publications | About the CAA

Page 11..

Page 12...

And for CPL Standards Document 03: Notes for the Guidance of Examiners and Applicants taking the CPL Skill Test (Aeroplanes) | Publications | About the CAA

Page 11..
Or on page 20 of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_lts...ept%202012.pdf

That seems to cover the checkride issue pretty well, at-least for us Brits. How about the yanks?

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/...S-8081-14B.pdf

Page 36...
And page 38

So nobody is arguing for blind and unthinking use of checklists, but the world's two most competent aviation authorities seem pretty clear that you should be using one.

Unless there is something wrong with the standards of airmanship being required in the PPL and CPL checkrides / skill tests that I've missed?

G

Or, "two of the worlds most competent aviation authorities..." ;)

... And, as specifically mentioned, an approved one, at that.

This, and:

...really should be enough to remind pilots to do away with the multi page essays from non approved sources, and stick to what the manufacturer provides for the aircraft.

Thanks for the research G!

A much less clear question is what do we mean by "approved", and who is allowed to approve it?

G

SSD:

In July of this year the Safety & Airspace Regulation Group, Flight Standards Department of the UK CAA published the latest revision of their 'Flight Examiners' Handbook (Aeroplanes and Helicopters)'.

Amongst other things the Handbook provides Guidance Notes for examiners conducting flight tests. The Guidance Notes for the LAPL/PPL(A) Skill Test Briefing are to be found at Appendix 2A. As a part of the Main Brief to be carried out by the Examiner under 'Operation' the Handbook states the Examiner should brief (my emphasis):

'Operation. You should conduct this flight in a safe and practical manner and in accordance with ATO Procedures and National Rules. Use your checklist while you are on the ground. In the air you may carry out checks from memory but following the checklist sequence. I want you to say aloud your check-list items as you do them.'

Insofar as the flight test is concerned the applicant, under paragraph 3.2.4, must demonstrate ability to: ... Maintain control of the aircraft at all times such that the successful outcome of a procedure or manoeuvre is never seriously in doubt. The applicant's airmanship and TEM must be assessed with each exercise and this must include lookout, checks and drills ...

- the UK CAA do!!!

That's what he's on about!!!

The authority (CAA, FAA, Transport Canada, etc.) - whoever approved the aircraft.

This includes "Emergency Procedures" and "Normal Procedures" sections, from which manufacturer's checklists are derived.

If you are ramp checked (or worse, on the witness stand) and asked to produce the checklist you referred to for the flight, it would be helpful to you if the one you produced was obviously approved by the authority. The one you'll find in the Flight Manual is.

That said, I agree that there are a few aircraft flying out there which predate this requirement (pre 1949). I suppose with those, you just do your best if the POH provides no checklist.

Yes, some simple types (maybe homebuilds such as Nipper, Jodels etc) may be single seat and have no approved checklists. In those cases maybe there is no mandatory requirement for (or availability of) an approved checklist.

But types such as the Chipmunk and YAK - no excuse there I think!

Just because you may have flown a particular type over many years and have gained a substantial amount of experience doesn't exempt you from the basic principles of good airmanship (TEM) - no matter how much faith you have in your own intelligence.

Remember the greatest cause of accidents is still 'pilot error'.

The use of checklists can only serve to lessen the likelihood of errors arising due to inadvertence on the part of the pilot.

Yes, sort of....

I did use the term "referred to" to distinguish from "held in hand most of the time, and read from". I am in favor of the approved checklist being the reference for the flight, as opposed to a home made document of uncertain origin.

I have certainly seen situations where the over use or dependance on the paper checklist created a cockpit distraction, or interrupted the flow at the time. That could be worse than forgetting an item at that phase of flight. You can check gear down in thirty seconds, but not if you have a mid air first! Everything in moderation...

I'm not saying that the approved checklist has to be in the pilot's hand on a regular basis during the flight. It must be available, and the pilot must refer to it. Reference could be because it has been completely memorized, and I'm not against that, if it works for that pilot, in that aircraft type.

If, the pilot wishes to refer to the checklist directly that's fine too, other than "memory items" (emergency stuff) should be memorized. When I fly my 150, I know that the POH is in the seat pocket, and available. When I fly a Caravan, I'll be holding the paper, 'cause I don't fly them frequently, and costly mistakes can be made, particularly during the start.

This probably is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" situations. If a pilot needs to ask, they need to refer to the paper version of the approved checklist. Other pilots can probably fly entirely safely with recollection of the approved checklist, which must be available, should it be needed. But those pilots do no good by suggesting that other pilots do not need to refer to the paper checklist. Its a personal decision for a private flight, and a company policy for a commercial flight.

That's only for check flights, a tiny percentage of my flights, and post dates my operational flying flying anyway (and is indicative of the sort of 'official thinking' [that every PPL is a part-finished airline pilot - what tosh!] that led me to stop flying a while ago, after several very enjoyable decades).

My point stands! That the official mind now mandates checklists in check flights on simple aeroplanes says a lot about the trend of the official mind.

And where do today's 'non airline fodder' find a dHC1 checklist anyway? There are RAF pilot's notes of dubious worth, and ditto few 'home brewed' flying school Chippy checklists. Nothing from deHavilland Canada that I'm aware of. Never seen a manufacturer's POH, either.

From TCDS A-19, Issue 11 for the DHC-1, pages 3 and 4:

"Required Equipment Approved DHC-1 Chipmunk Airplane Flight Manual (DHC-1-2B-S3) PSM1-1S3-1" For example.

That model of the Chipmunk is required to carry the approved Flight Manual.

I would imagine that the RAF qualifies as an entity who are able to create and approve a Flight Manual, or other procedure, for aircraft that they operate, but that's just my opinion....

Ah! That explains the dymo-taped notice on the instrument panel "Spin recovery may require full forward stick. See also flight manual". But would you have time to un-stow it (from where?) find the relevant page, and follow what it says, before the ground intervened. :eek:

There's barely stowage space for a bit of paper with one's radio frequencies scribbled on it in a Chippy, never mind somewhere to keep a flight manual! Even my chart had to be stuffed down the side of the seat cushion when not in use (stowed behind my back for aeros!).

I would suggest the idea is that you study the manual before you fly the aircraft to familiarize yourself with its operating characteristics and any type specific peculiarities.

I find it puzzling why the UK GA scene has such an antipathy to using and following the manufacturers recommendations in the POH on the best way to operate the aircraft. Instead a lot of "one size fits all" practices such as turning off the carb heat on short final, something specifically prohibited for all Cessna SEP's; are rampant

Yeah that can be a problem! I was flying an MD500E helicopter the other day. The Flight Manual was certainly aboard, in the compartment under your heels. Accessible if you lift your feet up! I never said that aircraft are well thought out as to where manuals are stored in the cockpit.

When I approve a placard for the instrument panel which includes "refer to Flight Manual [Supplement]", it is my hope that the pilot has made themselves familiar with the referenced details before they are airborne - that's part of the type familiarization whether you are checked out by someone, or check yourself out - in either case, you should be making yourself familiar. The placard just reminds you of that.

In my worst example of not reading a Flight Manual before flight, I was ferrying a new Cessna 303, and entering icing conditions, with all the deicing systems operating, to have a really bad - near fatal event related to icing. I later read in the Flight Manual that flight into known icing approval had been removed from the aircraft (it was to begin with) by an AD ,a d placard - the placard had not been installed. Thus my self checkout in the plane by cockpit and placard review had failed.

Read the FM before you fly the plane!

No **** sherlock! ;)

Did you really think I meant a Chippy pilot, spinning earthwards, frantically leafs through the flight manual for advice? :eek:

SSD:

Sometimes you just have to accept you're wrong.

:)

SSD

Would that be the manual you did not even know existed until DAR provided the reference.......

....The one that, never in a million Sundays, would fit into a Chipmunk?

Spanner, I agree. But not in this instance. For why, see my earlier posts.

Yeah, I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken....

Me too!!! :):):)

For anyone interested in flying the DHC1 Chipmunk. And no, it does not fit in the aeroplane, however, tablet mounts are available via a ram mount.

Sorted.........

Ah, that doc. Yes, I've had a copy of that for years as photocopied loose leaf sheets without that nice green cover. Never knew it was the official flight de Havilland Canada manual.

I remember using it to try to determine the limits on flying with the canopy partly open, but the only reference in there is that for aeros it should be fully shut. I found from experience that anything more than open to the 'second notch setting' did affect the aeroplane's handling in yaw (it became less stable). But there's nothing in the manual about that, only advice that the canopy has several 'open' settings. On hot days I generally flew it open just to first notch (except for aeros of course) which had no noticeable effect on handling. Second notch was good for aerial photography while steering with one's feet (which the Chippy does quite well!).

As an aside, I was taking off one day on a first post-maintenance flight when the canopy (which I'd checked by trying pull it open before we took off as I always did, and it didn't budge) became unlatched as we hit a particularly big Barton bump on take off, and slid right back. Too late to abort t/o, but luckily my mate in the back seat was on the ball and he caught it before it hit the stops, and we managed between us to get it closed and latched on the climb-out for a quick circuit before giving it back to the engineers for a bit of latch adjustment!

There's lots of stuff in there about maintenance procedures, and every Chippy pilot should study the flap system to see why VFE speeds should NEVER be exceeded! Those cables are thin, and failure will lead to asymmetric deployment.

But carry it in the aeroplane? Why?

And you'll note from the 'checklist' sections that the items covered are few and easily checked. Things like spin recovery are as taught in (in my day) in the PPL (no mention in the book of that placarded need for full forward stick, which in some circumstances is required). So why would you need a checklist when a comprehensive pre-flight inspection, including the engine and underneath, and a pre-flight left-to-right cockpit check covers everything? Just because some official, looking at flying training from the point of view of every PPL being airline fodder, thinks check-list-itis is ALWAYS good?

Why make things more complicated, introduce the possibility of 'doing checks by rote rather than thinking', by mandating a checklist on a biennial on such a simple machine flown by an enthusiastic and capable pilot (as all Chippy pilots are!) with no intentions of becoming a bus driver?

Would you use one in the even simpler J3 Cub?

Would you use one on a Dagling (about as simple as an aeroplane can get)?

Would you use one in a car? On a bicycle?

I used a mnemonic checklist in the flexwing I flew yesterday - that makes a J3 seem positively complicated

But I have to agree about manuals - regardless of some national regulations, I see no real value in having the POH on board any single pilot aeroplane.

G

How've we got from:

to

That's Thread drift!!!

:confused:

Spanner,

At least he is not reporting anyone to the authorities.

Now that's thread drift.

I personally try not to make absolute pronouncements about anything in flying. I have been flying out of the same airport for 30 years. I don't carry any maps with me when I am flying locally as I am very familiar with the area. However I don't extrapolate the fact that I don't need a map for some flights to I don't need a map for any flight.

POH's are obviously quite variable and yes some are not very useful. However most of the people reading this thread are probably flying a Cessna or Piper made after 1975. These will have GAMA format and contain quite a bit of information some of which may become unexpectedly useful.

A personal example example of why having the manual on board is a good idea. I was off with a friend in a C 172S for a 150 $ hamburger one Sunday. After our personal low cholesterol warning light was extinguished we go to start up for the flight back and the battery is weak enough that it won't quite start. A local fellow sees what is happening and brings over a power cart. Now some systems require the battery master to be off with external power connected and for others it has to be on. Failure to get this right can damage the electrical system. So which one for this airplane ? Well a quick check of the manual and the answer is master off.

So what would you have done since you make a point of not carrying an aircraft manual ?

I see no real value in having the POH on board any single pilot aeroplane.

Just a remark from some strange country across the pond; for some local authorities such a statement could finally lead to pull the Certificate of Trustworthiness and invalidate the pilot license - no joke, just talk to someone i.e. under the repression regime of something called ZÜP ...

It's not that one 'makes a point of not carrying', it's that it won't fit into the bluddy aeroplane! Perhaps you are only used to aerial motor cars like C172s? Some of the more fun machines don't over indulge in the stowage department.

To answer your question, I'd have hand-swung it. That you didn't (it's no big deal on a 172) tells me you might be an aeroplane driver rather than an aviator.

What would I have done?

I'd have phoned somebody who had a manual. Or gone to see if there was one about the airfield I could borrow. Or for that matter looked it up in the POH I had on board, since I might well keep a copy as a matter of convenience.

Or dare I say it, used the "external power start" bit from the official checklist, which I'm pretty sure is there.

Stuck on the ground without the POH to look something up might be inconvenient, but it's unlikely to jeaopardise flight safety, as in that situation or most similar ones, you have the option not to fly.


But in flight? A pilot should be flying, or landing his or her aeroplane if they have a problem, and anything they really need should be either in their heads, or the checklist. I can think of very few, if any, occasions where you should be looking anything up in the POH in-flight, in a single pilot aircraft. And therefore, I do not see carrying a POH in flight as having any flight safety benefit - and if it doesn't, why mandate it?

G

G the eng...

Plus 1

Hasn't this thread gone on far too long?

G the E & P.C. Why wouldn't you just hand swing it? Job done in about 30 seconds and you're on your way.

I hand swing aeroplanes where I can reach without standing on tippy toes. That rules out a chippy, and plenty of others, for me. And anyway I need someone I can trust on the inside, especially with the super cub, which has shower of sparks mags. So one has to disengage the starter ( there is a switch) and turn the key to buzz the mags. Then the inside person has to get out engine running, from the front seat, and I have to get in. So actually I would rather be inside, with someone else doing the pulling on the prop. You going to come and do it for me? and what has this got to do with a C150 checklist anyway?