Downwind Checks ?
 

Does anyone find the downwind checklist (BUMPFFITCH …. etc) as illogical as me?
From a Human Factors standpoint, the checks are done in a non-related order, mixing airframe/engine/fuel checks in a disorganized way.

I try to do my checks in a more grouped way, which I think is more logical and easier to remember – fuel, engine, instruments, airframe, cabin - it also adapts itself to different types. Its easy to remember the categories and there’s only a few items in each category, which also makes it easy to remember.

Fuel Engine Instruments Airframe CABIN Any thoughts?
GB

A flow check would be better, say from left to right.

In our plane that would be:

Harnesses / brakes / brief
Check fuel selector (I leave it alone in the circuit, it should be ok becasue of FREDA)
Fuel pump on
Landing Lights On
DG>Compass / Alt
Airspeed check in flap operating range
Mags check BOTH
Temps and pressures, Volts (not much you can do of course if something is amiss except land!)
Carb heat
Throttle
Mixture
Gear (always down :) )
Approach Flaps

Does it really matter which one you use, as long as you cover everything you need to, you can call it what you like?:rolleyes:

I use (specific for my aircraft and done from memory)

Brakes off
Mixture
Fuel (sufficient for the go-around)
Fuel pump on
Hatches and harness OK
T’S & P’S ok for the go-around
Carb heat as required
Passenger OK

I do Prop and Flaps on X wind

Rod1

Was told something useful which I hadnt really thought about before the other day. When using the BUMPFFICHH checks, Call downwind etc and then straight away put the gear down (obviously this only applies to RG) THEN run though the checks. The reason being if you do the brakes,mixture and the gear check first there is the risk that you just go straight on to the rest of the checks without waiting for the gear to fully extend and lock, obviously if it hasnt gone down and you havent checked its going to be a bit of a surprise on final! If you lower the gear first, you do the Brakes then sort out the Mixture and by the time you come to do the Undercarriage it will be down and you can do a positive check.

Some might say you could just do a different set of checks to avoid the above problem but as Chuffer said, as long as you do them all theres no problem.

C250

GUMPS
 

GUMPS is a landing checklist based on the KISS principle.

Gas -- On [fullest tank]
Undercarriage -- Down if not welded
Mixture -- Rich
Prop -- Fine [if controllable]
Seatbelts -- Check / remind passengers

I add:

Brakes -- Off

and pull Carb Heat just before reducing power turning base.

These days I start with a reminder to be strapped in to the pax / instructor and on turning downwind do a flow through according to the cockpit layout that covers all the above.

In the flow through I put my hand on each item and look at it while calling out where it should be.

In a Citabria and C-172/152, that ends up as:

Master -- On
Mags -- Both On
Mixture -- Rich
Fuel -- On [both]
Brakes -- Off

Best to say out loud even when solo.

Doesn't matter what you use, as long as you accomplish everything.
Flow checks, acronyms, mnemonics, it's all there to do the same thing.
Take a pick and choose whatever you are most comfortable with.
I highly prefer flow checks since you only have top remember where to start, from there you check everything you come across.
Some airplanes (due to their archaic layout) are better suited for a mnemonic/acronym.
Example; I flew a Mooney a while ago, first flight on type, late 70'ies model.
Weird combo of old and new avionics/guages and dials.
Analog CHT/EGT/turbo temp and digital engine analyser system scattered all over the panel. Didn't even know where to start with a flowcheck.
So back to BUMPFICH/GUMPS on that one.

Funny thing - I do many of our Club check rides - and wondered why the aeroplane would slide towards the runway (or away from same), the height would be sliding down, and the radio call for downwind would be late.
Then I found the pilots' head was buried in the cockpit, looking for the instruments, and checking the mags and master.......
Stay with BUMPFFHH at most - and look out of the window. Or join me at Jack Brown's Seaplane Base, fly the J3 Cub and use CARS: Carb heat, Area (clear of boats), Rudder (water rudder up), S Straps.
Let's keep it simple please!

When landing you are descending, this requires reducing power.

Why would you want to move the prop control to full fine and thus increase RPM?

I thought fine pitch was for take off and climb?

What is wrong with moving the prop control to full fine as you flare for the landing? Or just prior to the flare?

EH?, what happens if you need to go around and you havnt got the prop fully fine? Happend in a Mooney once when I was not PIC and the prop wasnt fine and it didnt climb very well at all!:ooh:

Well if for some I reason have to go around I move the prop RPM from cruise RPM to climb RPM and apply climb power.

Works every time and is no different than going from level flight in cruise power to climb attitude and climb power, except I don't need to move the mixture from lean to rich as it is already in rich from the pre landing check.

What could possibly be wrong with doing it that way?

Of course it's different than going from cruise power to climb power whilst in the cruise and changing altitudes, you make it sound like the go around is some convoluted event that you can sit back and have cup of tea over, also are your aeroplanes that slick that you can't get them to slow down on finals? the last thing you want to be doing in a sudden go around is faffing about with the props as well as the MAP, but, as they say, whatever floats your boat.

" the last thing you want to be doing in a sudden go around is faffing about with the props as well as the MAP, but, as they say, whatever floats your boat."

I don't mind discussing these issues with private pilots so lets take it a step further.

What is a " sudden " go around? I can't imagine a situation where a go around would be " sudden " unless you fell asleep during the appproach and when you awoke everything looked sudden.

An airplane flies an approach at a given speed and attitude, a sudden application of power will not change the inertia of the airplane in a split second and sudden application of power will result in a prop surge in RPM as the governor struggles to govern the RPM with the sudden increase of power. There is no logical reason why a pilot can not smoothly move both the prop pitch control and the power control and go from approach power to climb power as you pitch up from the approach attitude to the climbing attitude.

I don't " flaff around with the power levers, I move them smoothly to the position that is needed for the power I want.

I'm not sure what you mean by " whatever floats your boat "

I am in the advanced flight training business and that is what I teach all my students, so far none have refused to be taught that method of power changes and most of my students are very high time pilots.

So I'm willing to discuss this I have outlined my thoughts, can you outline your thoughts and convince me I am doing it wrong? :sad:

Heres a sudden go around for you,which is a true event and happend to me. On Final at my home airfield ,approach stable and an aircraft holding at the first intersection waiting for my landing, at 100ft a drainage company 4x4 Crosses the runway unannounced from the second intersection which is right on the numbers,Full power and go-around commenced. Must have been at about 40-50ft when I saw him!

Down wind checks ? not a good idea!
 

I think it is time for these checks to be re-named, with all the avoidance of "noise sensative areas" that flying seems to involve now I think it is unwise to tie a checklist to geographical part of the flight that might not happen.

It would seem to me that "pre landing check" would be a more realistic name for these checks as there is a danger that if a downwind leg is not flown the downwind checks won't get done.

Chuck

Nobody said you were doing it wrong, hence the "whatever floats your boat" comment, so don't put words into my mouth, it is a matter of preference, and probably one that is not taught here in the UK, but as you are being pedantic how about this for sudden:-
Scenario, windy day, gusting as well, you are on finals (obviously), you are bouncing around quite considerably, you cross the fence, get down to 100ft, 80ft, 70ft, then WINDSHEER, I have just lost 15kts IAS, I am now something that resembles a brick, and earthbound we are going, apply FULL power quick, phew, just avoided striking the ground. yes that happened to me once a few years ago approaching a small GA airfield in the Midlands, now if you can enlighten me as to what is not sudden about that then I'd be gratified.

The bottom line is, why wait until you are in the flare before applying max RPM? the increase in RPM when you put it forward at a low MAP setting has a negligible effect on your aeroplane anyway, so why not include it in your "REDS BLUES 3 GREENS" check on finals, I just can't see any issues with doing it this way, but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not :ok:

I have had people taxi onto the runway when I was on short finals twice and a helicopter cross in front once, all would be classified as sudden from my perspective! On the other hand I fly the downwind leg with 65% cruse power and prop in cruse mode if I can. I fine it off on X wind and can then abandon the approach at any time I am below circuit height.

I agree very strongly that down wind checks should be kept to the minimum and lookout should be a high priority.

Rod1

Some intersting points.

My particular concern was not what its called, GUMPS BUMP or whatever, but that the standard mnemonic used appears to be a non-structured approach. Thus the flow method, advocated by some, would suggest more structure - however, as mentioned, an odd cockpit layout might frustrate that.

Sir Pratt, I take your point, and the order can be changed, with the airframe checks moved to the start of the checks - no problem.

As to using whatever system you want - well, that's OK when you are own your own. But, with instructor or exmainer who is expecting a *standard* BUMPF... or whatever, its do it his/her way, not your own way. In other words having to memorise a disorganised, but standard, sequence, for the sake of it.

GB

“But, with instructor or examiner who is expecting a *standard* BUMPF”

If I am on a check ride I just sing out the checks as I do them. The instructors do not care provided the items they think are important are included, order unimportant.

Rod1

When or if you move to commercial flight training (if you haven't already, exuse my ignorance) the examiner on test will expect you to "use all checks as published by the official check list", so if that includes BUMPF etc then that's what he expects you to use. ;)

I have yet to fly an aircraft that I could not apply full RPM and full throttle at the same time. I am with Chuck 100% on this.

In my aircraft I fly the circuit at 18" and 2400 RPM. On final if I have to go around I smoothly advance the throttloe and the RPM at the same time.

Yesterday doing a Complex conversion on a Lance I had the pilot fly the circuit on the same numbers, on the go around which he was not expecting at 50ft I had him advance the RPM and the throttle in a smooth motion, achieve the climb and clean the aircraft. His comment was that was so much easier and a damn site better than thrashing the balls of it at max RPM.

We could perhaps argue that anyone who finds a complex type so complex that they can't do as Chuck suggest's has a little more time with an Instructor.

Taking that last little bit as a bit of a dig I think this highlights that you will do what you have been trained to do, I have been taught to do it on finals after the gear is extended, whereas you do it your way, nobody is disputing whether each is right or wrong, I am saying that in my opinion that's not the time to be doing it, it doesn't mean I or anyone is incapable of doing it your way, but in my opinion (because of the way I have been taught) it's not an automatic hand movement.

Deano777
Just an ordinary amateur me so this will never be a problem. But;
"use all checks as published by the official check list"
Now let me think, I built the aircraft, which has a unique layout, so I am the official expert, so I just decided that my way is the official one. How did I do? I suppose I will need to write it down some time, otherwise people with think I made it all up….;)
Bose, with an electric prop you would want to convince the computer to change to “climb mode” before you were down to 50ft. However, with a conventional set-up I agree with you that going fine too early is not good.
Rod1

Hypothetically - you are flying a Seneca II, you get on to final with cruise power set, you check the gear etc and as has been mentioned you find the need for a sudden g/a. You now have 4 levers to move forward that arent all going to be going to the same position, the prop levers will be going further forward than the throttles due to the need not to over boost the engines. Therefore you are going to have to twist your hand to control the overboost. Whilst you are doing that, because of the greater inertia of a heavier a/c you are going to be sinking even further and you could end up touching down quite heavily before you get into the full g/a climb. Imagine if you realised you needed to go around because you didnt do the checks properly and didnt put the gear down, horrible scraping sound ensues!
The point im trying to make is that every a/c is different and some require a different set of checks to others. Personally, I think that for the small difference in RPM that you are going to get when going fine makes very little difference and its one less thing to think about when doing a go around!
C250

I fly a Seneca and have never experianced this scenario. Standard drill in an engine failure is all levers forward and I have never had a problem with this either.

Not talking about engine failure. Talking about a g/a with both engines operating. In a real se approach you wouldnt really want to be doing a g/a below ACH if possible, but thats going off track a bit!

So you put the props to fully fine and the throttles to 39" MAP at the same time on a normal twin engine g/a? At 300ft I'd be happy trying it (trying being the operateive word) but at anything like 50ft (as in the sudden g/a situation that has been suggested) I wouldnt like to try it. Again I must stress thats my pov and im just going off what Ive been taught.

Again it boils down to the fact that if you've done it at some stage there's no big deal! But my view would be why stress yourself with it at 50ft when there is more chance of things going pear shaped when you could have done it at 500ft with less risk?

C250

Deano77:

O.K. I will attempt to explain my methods of power control and why.

Remember I was responding to comments about moving the pitch control to full fine on the downwind.

" The bottom line is, why wait until you are in the flare before applying max RPM? the increase in RPM when you put it forward at a low MAP setting has a negligible effect on your aeroplane anyway, so why not include it in your "REDS BLUES 3 GREENS" check on finals, I just can't see any issues with doing it this way, but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not "

O.K. lets argue this your way.

You claim I am being pedantic when in fact I feel I am being exctly the opposite as my thoughts on how to fly come from decades of experience and learning from experience, and not from the myopic world of ab-inito training, teaching like one of Pavlovs dogs so as not to offend someone who checks everyone in the structured dummned down world of the puppy mill mentality of a lot of flight schools.

First lets use a senario where go arounds are 100% of our approaches when we are actually working the aircraft.

I was a heavy water bomber Captain for fifteen years and my method for approaching the fire for the retardent/ water drop on said fire was to leave the propellors in cruise RPM for the run in to the drop and if the ground was relatively flat for the exit from the fire....in other words the whole proceedure including the go around was done using cruise RPM unless there was an obstacle that required climb power to climb above said obstacle.

I would like to add that ocassionally the turbulence or the exit from the fire drop area was signifigant enough that I would need climb power to exit the drop zone and there was the odd time I would select climb RPM just prior to the drop....so please, please save me all the hand wringing about how turbulent the air can get approaching a runway.

Now for some more comments that are not meant to be pedantic.

Aircraft engines are subject to wear in direct porportion to the amount of heat generated and by friction caused by the number of RPM's over a given time frame.

When driving an airplane down hill I see no advantage in wearing out my engines by using unnecessary RPM when something as basic as pre planning the approach based on conditions will allow gravity to generate the velocity I require aided with a small bit of thrust from the engine/s.

Just to clear this up, if there was an extenuating circumstance where I felt I needed climb RPM, good airmanship will prevail and I would select the required RPM/ power just prior to needing same......I do not motor around the sky with the propellor driving me crazy with noise.

Oh, I almost forgot I flew as a Ag pilot for eight years and never used full RPM during all the many thousands of times I climbed from two feet above the ground to climb over trees and power lines....

" but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not "

We are all entitled to our own opinions.

Chuck

I think the first problem here is that everyone is more comfortable with what they have always done, and were trained to do. The assumption is usually if I was taught to do it that way - it must be right. So getting people to accept there is another way is tough.

Personally I can see no disadvantages in what you suggest and one or two advantages. That would suggest your technique is better.

However, there may be one danger and that is in changing what you have always done. If you were taught to advance the prop during the approach, and change to doing so only in the event of and on a go around, in moments of stress there may be a risk of reverting to your earlier training and assuming you have already advanced the prop. In short it takes a while for a new technique to become second nature - clearly not a problem if you were taught the "Chuck" way from the start.

Yes fuji but the reality is if someone reacted to a go around as stressful a momentary over boosting of the engine would be the least problem said pilot has.

What should be taught is the transition from the approach attitude to the climb attitude is not the equivalent of launching the space shuttle power requirement wise.....

...anyhow I've said my bit on this one....happy motoring to all of you and fly safe.

Ah right so, its okay to overboost your engines but its not okay to have them running at 50rpm more than would otherwise be, set at cruise power on a 2 mile final! How silly of me not to realise. Its six of one and half a dozen of the other. You do it your way, I do it mine.

My words were "why stress yourself" NOT "the g/a is stressful" Subtle difference there but I shoud have made myself more clear, I agree the g/a is not stressful my point being why move 4 levers at the same time when you need only move 2? You do a RBG check on final everythings down, everything works and you have full power available to you when you advance the power for the g/a.

I too have said my piece on this one!

Commanche 250:

I just can't let this pass......

You say:

" Ah right so, its okay to overboost your engines but its not okay to have them running at 50rpm more than would otherwise be, set at cruise power on a 2 mile final! How silly of me not to realise. Its six of one and half a dozen of the other. "

I don't know what you are flying, but I have never seen an airplane where the RPM change from cruise RPM the full fine pitch RPM is only a change of 50 RPM with an increase of manifold pressure sufficient to produce positive thrust.

If you can't figure out how to move your prop leavers and your power levers to produce the necessary go around power before you crash your airplane I can't help you here on Pprune.

Anyhow you and I are both correct about one thing, you can fly your airplane any way you want. :E

I think we are at slight cross purposes.

I agree with your handling of the prop., I was simply suggesting that for those for whom it is engrained that the prop lever is advanced on the approach in a moment of stress on the go around they might just forget to advance the prop altogether but they are so accustom to it being done already. In other words if you change the way you do things worth making sure it comes naturally?

Chuck

By this I take it you mean that lower RPM means less wear on the engine and higher RPM means higher wear? This contradicts what Walter Atkinson, who runs the Advanced Pilot Seminars in the US, claims, namely that higher RPMs produce less wear on an engine.

Any comments?

Right Chuck I cant let this lie either lol...approach configuration, gear down, flaps 40 degrees, 90 kts, prop levers set at cruise RPM which is 2300 and a MAP of between 15-17". Long final, short final - makes no difference. If you increase the RPM levers you will only get a small increase in RPM as the MAP is low and the props are only spinning at about 1500-1600 RPM. So where does the extra wear and tear come into it if you are only getting a small rise in RPM. Yes granted if you are at cruise power which is 24" 2300 in the a/c I fly and you then increase the RPM you will get a rise of 275 RPM.

So final is only going to last about 2-3 mins with the props fully fine which is a tiny fraction of the total time spent at a lower RPM so where is the problem? Anyway, we are right, I shall continue to fly my a/c as I always have because I have never had ANY problems doing it that way!

Nuff said :ok:

C250

" I was simply suggesting that for those for whom it is engrained that the prop lever is advanced on the approach in a moment of stress on the go around they might just forget to advance the prop altogether but they are so accustom to it being done already. In other words if you change the way you do things worth making sure it comes naturally? "

You have a valid point about changing proceedures, but would it be out of the question to change the method of teaching the students that it is not necessary to move the prop pitch to full fine on the approach to teaching them to select the desired RPM when needed? Why would a pilot need full fine and full power to go around, wouldn't climb power and climb RPM be sufficient to conduct a go around?

" By this I take it you mean that lower RPM means less wear on the engine and higher RPM means higher wear? This contradicts what Walter Atkinson, who runs the Advanced Pilot Seminars in the US, claims, namely that higher RPMs produce less wear on an engine.

Any comments? "

drauk, I have not read the claims by W. Atkinson, my comments were based on known physics.....namely friction is a result of travel and rate of travel, in the case of a light four stroke engine such as being discussed here the higher the RPM the further travel you will have with all components.

I am basing my broad assumption on the basis of the less distance your comonents such as pistons travel the less chance of wear.

Lets have a look at large radial engines and read the engine manufactures recommandations regarding RPM and manifold pressures, I have yet to operate one that did not have limits on RPM and manifold pressures.

Anyhow it looks like once again I have managed to get myself into a situation where I will be fielding "what if's" forever.

So all you good people fly your airplanes any way you choose, and I shall fly mine the way that has worked for over half a century for me with no problems safety wise nor mechanically wise. :ok:

Okay. I don't see it that way - for me it's an interesting discussion and it's something worth discussing. You're a very very experienced aviator and that's why I was interested to hear your viewpoint, which as I say, is in contrast to another experienced aviator.

I am definitely no expert on this. However, as I understand it, your assumption is an over simplification which might seem sensible at first glance, but is actually wrong. Atkinson claims to have measured data which proves this. Apparently it is to do with higher RPMs resulting in lower internal cylinder pressure.

I am talking about typical small piston engines as found in the typical private GA aircraft in the UK, which after all, is what most of the people on this forum actually fly.

Sorry, can't be bothered to quote and paste, gets too personal.

Comanche,
You don't even get an RPM rise if the speed is below a certain value.

And Chuck,
I have flown an aircraft where it was not possible to move prop and power lever at the same time, an aircraft one could call local to Chuck. Apart from the fact that I almost never used anything more than idle at any time during the descent and approach, reverse wouldn't be available for the descent if the prop wasn't fully fine.

The missed approach obstacle clearance is different form the take-off but still both assume the engine out condition for multi. Fot training always full power for initiating a missed approach; one may however choose how long one wishes to maintain that setting (perhaps even before reaching it (Thinks: covered myself nicely there!)).

I wonder if anyone has actually gone as far as calculating the difference in power between take-off and climb for a typical VP single. I used to use Climb power for take-off for environmental reasons.

Whilst I feel that landing time is a time for landing not farting around with anything else, I reckon props should be the last item on the BEFORE landing checklist, not the downwind check.

As a matter of little or possibly no interest we would often use fully fine on the ATR-72 if it was gusty for a better response even though the aircraft had an automatic prop setting.

And I'd recommend to go with the flow any day because it works on all aircraft where the Bumpff thing will have you wasting time darting here and there looking for things which in some cases aren't even there.

" I am definitely no expert on this. However, as I understand it, your assumption is an over simplification which might seem sensible at first glance, but is actually wrong. Atkinson claims to have measured data which proves this. Apparently it is to do with higher RPMs resulting in lower internal cylinder pressure. "

Fair comment, I will grant you this discussion is about small engines.

Conversely all certified aircraft have guidelines as to power settings and RPM for given power settings.

There are basically three power settings with limits on RPM.

Full power for take off.

Climb power.

Cruise power.

This whole discussion started with checks on the down wind.

My comments started with saying that setting the props to full fine on the down wind portion of the circuit was not in my opinion good airmanship.

I then stated that I select full fine on the power reduction to land ( closing the throttle/s. )

I have also added the comments that should I for some reason have the need for go around power I will set go around RPM and climb power as I pitch up from the decending attitude to the climb attitude and there is sufficient time to do this without endangering the safety of the flight.

I also am of the opinion that a go around or the need to stop a uncommanded rate of descent does not constitute a stressful situation for me as I fly the approach and landing profiles with due care and attention to conditions.

When the propellor governor is set to full fine and the throttle/s are opened to produce enough power to compensate for a uncommanded loss of height/airspeed they will generally surge in RPM past climb RPM, I am of the opinion that this much RPM change is not needed under most every flight situation that you will encounter.......

.......or to put it another way, I do not recall ever having to use that much sudden power application in around thirty thousand hours of flying...and in some very critical situations I might add...

So I hope that better explains where I was coming from. :ok:

I can't imagine how this can happen as the go-around drill (for a piston) that was drummed into me during my training was "Pitch up, power up, gear up, flap up etc". It sounds like maybe the PIC got flustered at the time and didn't go through the drill in the correct order(?)

Sorry, just a late edit. I was also taught that it was not always necessary to have the props fully fine on a go around. Just sufficiently high to allow the required application of MAP without overboosting the engines and still maintaining a reasonably high positive Roc. So, when on a go around off on an ILS approach (normally conducted at 18"MAP 2400RPM 120KIAS), I just advance the power levers to 24" which gets me started on the go around and after I have cleaned up I may elect to go to 25"/2500 RPM to complete the climb if required. Works well for me and presents very little hassle.

Miserlou, that was the point I was trying to make. In the a/c I fly, that figure is 1500 RPM and over that figure you will only get a small rise in RPM at a low MAP. And further to going fine on final its not really going to make a difference to engine wear.

"Whilst I feel that landing time is a time for landing not farting around with anything else, I reckon props should be the last item on the BEFORE landing checklist, not the downwind check."

Agree with you there, hence the check on final for the Red's Blue's Green's check. As has been mentioned what happens if you dont conform to a standard circuit pattern and forget gear mixure etc, just as easy to do a pre-landing check which encompasses what are possibly the 3 most important things before landing imo.

Chuck, "My comments started with saying that setting the props to full fine on the down wind portion of the circuit was not in my opinion good airmanship."

Something else we agree on :p, which is why I do it on final, before landing.

C250