Checklists
 

I'll keep this brief and simple.

My brother (engineer) and I (PPL student pilot, 25hrs in) were discussing the use of checklists while flying.

The way my instructor has implied (not "told" exactly) is to have as much of the checklist mnemonics committed to memory so there's less reliance on them.
Upon speaking to said brother, he believes checklists should be out, used and referred to on every task, to avoid any doubt that I had missed something.

I would welcome thoughts and comments from instructors, students or whoever has any clarification on this matter.

Thanks in advance
Stuart

For me it's paper on the ground, memory in the air. I don't think that's uncommon. Sky gods of course will come along and tell you that they use memory exclusively.

Me too. But there are exceptions both ways:
- Initially you will work from checklists exclusively, but during your training some things (like downwind checks) will be drilled into you to be done from memory. In the circuit, just before landing, is not the time to spend large amounts of time with your head in the cockpit.
- Emergency drills in the air should be from memory. But there's usually also a list of abnormal procedure drills. As these are less urgent you can do them from a checklist, even in the air.
- When flying a very familiar aircraft I do the ground stuff from memory too. But that's not a change that happened overnight. To build up confidence that I would not be forgetting things I sat in the aircraft, emulating a complete flight and trying to work on a logical "flow" of things to check and do. I then referred back to the checklist to see if I hadn't missed anything. Only after a few iterations and a few of these flights was I confident enough not to need the checklist at all. And still this only applies to one specific aircraft that I fly a lot. All other types I still use the checklist.

Memory in the air, memory for emergencies, checklist on the ground, checklist always available for when I forget stuff. That's SEP anyhow - microlights I tend to do everything from memory to avoid the checklist going through the prop at the back :E

G

Throughout the RAF EFT syllabus use of checklists (FRCs) in the cockpit is not allowed (within reason). Doesn't look good if you don't know your checks by the 5th or 6th sortie.

However throughout my PPL training I was taught with a heavy reliance on checklists. Maybe due to the wide range of people and ages doing doing training civvy flying clubs probably think its safer to make sure everyone uses the lists to reduce the chance of missing something important.

I was actively discouraged from memorising my start/power/pre-take off checks during my training (Winter 09/10). I still ALWAYS use a checklist, running my finger down the list so I am less likely to miss something. If I get distracted halfway through, I always go back up this list to something I am absolutely certain I have already done and continue from there.

I then don't use the checklist again until after landing i.e. the rest of my flight checks are done from memory. However, the checklist is always easily 'grabbable' in an emergency so that although I have memorised my emergency actions, I can use it to check I've remembered everything, assuming there is time of course - bearing in mind 'Aviate, Navigate, Communicate'.

However, I find that pilots who have been flying much longer than myself were taught to memorise their pre-take off checks/vital actions. The training seems to have changed in this regard over the years....

I guess it also has to do with the environment you train in.

If you train at a school that mainly caters to pilots that eventually want to fly commercially, you'll see lots of emphasis on actually using a checklist. Because that's what you do in a B737.

On the other hand, if you train at a school that mainly caters to pilots that want to fly for fun, on very simple aircraft, you'll see more emphasis on working from memory.

The PA28 checklist I got when I trained for my PPL/SEP, at a school which provides mostly professional training, ran for two densely packed A4 pages. But I'm also training for my glider license and I have yet to see a written checklist there. Everything is done from memory.

I always use the checklist on the ground (and I still miss stuff, did a whole flight without the strobes on the other day, didn't realise until I came to switch them off......, which makes me think I should always carefully use a checklist and run my finger down each item. It's easy to get distracted by a passenger or radio call.) I fly four different types as well so I probably couldn't commit everything to memory even if I wanted to. Memory in the air although some non emergency failure stuff other than engine failure/fire I would have to get the checklist out.

Yeah but CB SIFT CB pre take off and WULF downwind isn't that hard to remember...:)

That's not completely true. What most GA pilots, clubs and schools often fails to understand is the difference between a procedure and a checklist. While it is true that you use a checklist when flying commersially, it is not used for EVERY single occasion. A procedure is what you do from memory. If deemed needed there's an associated checklist that you do after. This may contain none, some or all of the items stated in the procedure, but normally the most important items that will catch you out if omitted. For example an incorrect flap setting might potentially kill you on take-off, while a forgotten taxi light will not. The previous will be on the checklist, while the latter wont.

Ask your brother to try to manually fly an aircraft during a very turbulent instrument approach night time with strong and constantly changing crosswind component and in the same time read a 15 item checklist. Or indeed flying cuircuits in a densely trafficated uncontrolled aerodrome together with gliders and microlights, all with different speeds.

Understand the difference between a "checklist," and "procedures."

Checklists are exactly what their name implies - lists read to check that critical actions have been accomplished. The purpose of a checklist is not to prompt actions, although in the course of one's initial flight training they do serve as an 'aid memoir.' Normal checklist items are not procedures.

Imagine for example the after take off checklist; One should not rely on a checklist to prompt for gear and flap retraction, or any number of actions that are required in more complex aircraft types during the initial climb. These are actions that must be committed to memory, but which are later "checked" by reference to a checklist at a time when pilot workload permits, and when it is convenient and safe to do so.

"Procedures" are items that are included in the abnormal or emergency section of a checklist document. In the case of the emergency procedures a pilot is required to commit initial response actions to memory. These are immediate response items, like those called for in the case of an engine fire, or sudden cabin decompression. Once these initial memory items/actions have been accomplished the "procedures" contained in the emergency section of the checklist are then used as instructions (procedures) which should be followed, in the appropriate order.

Crankshaft....you obviously type at a greater speed than me, and I have only just noticed your post!

Traditionally the UK used to teach “vital actions” which were learned, but the US used checklists (talking simple light aircraft only). I have flown with a number of people who religiously followed a 20 + list of down wind checks in a busy circuit and hardly looked out at all. That might be ok for a big complex aircraft in CAS, but at an A/G airfield it is B***** dangerous. There is no checklist for my aircraft and I have no intention of creating one. I do regularly practice emergency drills etc and debrief on the ground afterwards, but most SEP’s are very simple machines and a simple left to right check is very easy.

Rod1
(I tend to mostly fly my own aircraft which I built so have a good understanding of)

An example given during the discussion was if I had perhaps forgotten to deploy the gear and damaged an aircraft / facility as a result.

Would I be questioned if I had my checklist out or would I be questioned "did you - to your knowledge deploy the gear? yes or no?"

If the judge at such an inquest is expecting me to say "I had my checklist out, was reading from it, deployed the gear in accordance with it, then it failed" they might not be impressed if I said "No m'lord I was working from memory and must have neglected to do so"?

Just adding a spanner in the works but the answers so far are very interesting. Many thanks for taking the time to reply.

Stuart

Most of the available check lists are rubbish and the rest are worse, most encourage a way of starting the engine that is setting all the pieces of an intake fire in place each time you start the engine. The shut down is as bad with most check lists giving no heed to the instructions issued by the engine manufacturer.

I have said enough on these forums about instructors teaching checklists to be used as do lists and I can't for the life of me understand how some SEP checklists are longer than the check list that Boeing publish for the 737.

I was during my US conversion taught very heavily to rely on checklists, which I rebelled against at times. I wouldn't mind it if the checklists were brief, but they're almost always overworked. So can the acronyms be. Thankfully most instructors agree that plowing through a 20 item checklist with nonsense in the traffic pattern whilst trying to spot 5 other aircraft isn't in the best interest of safety. But some were sticklers for it.

I use it for all my starts, runups, ground checks and after that I do it from memory. That said, I tend to forget things on shutdown as I then often skip the list. Last time I came back from lunch the radios were still on and the bloody master switch. Oops... So there certainly is a case to be made for them!:E:}

In a simple light aircraft you should not need a check list. Check lists are for multi-crew challenge/response environments, not memory replacements for the lone SEP pilot.

I've seen some PPLs sitting blocking a taxyway, or the fuel pumps, engine running, while they leaf through pages of bumph that would do justice to a Space Shuttle, not a simple PA28.

For heavens sakes SEPs are simple! Keep it that way! Do you outside and inside checks using the aeroplane; for instance, for internals do a left to right run around the cockpit checking what needs to be checked (not much in a simple aeroplane!).

KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!

This is fine, keeping the checklists really simple, for simple planes - as long as all you pilots remember that's what you asked for, when something stops unexpectedly, and you go bump, because you forgot something.

There is no requirement that "simple" aircraft be so common to each other that one list of steps, so simple that you can faultlessly remember them, fits all those planes. There can still be differences worthy of a checklist.

Add to that, modifications, or systems added by STC or avionics changes, which demand extra steps, which may have never entered your memory for later recall.

Also important to note, for slightly more advanced aircraft, the same steps might be presented in a different order, or with variations of event or other steps, depending upon circumstance. I spent 18 hours vetting the checklists, and other Flight Manual aspects for an OEM modification to a light twin known to most here. I took issue with many nuances in the checklists. These are certainly nuances that only the sharpest among us would remember without re-reading. These were certainly not checklists intended for memory.

So, checklist memorizers: You have the indication of an alternator failure in cruise flight, and confirm that indeed, the battery is no longer being charged. You're a while back from a suitable landing area, and otherwise have no need for an immediate landing. Do you extend the landing gear now, or wait 'till you're much more near the destination?

You're smart, and answer: "it depends...." What factors does it depend upon?

You have an engine failure with the fuel pump off. What do you do before you check for selection of a full(er) tank, and turn the fuel pump on? What might you need to open to do it?

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?

Yes, the checklist for the Cessna 150 I have owned for 24 years has not left the seat pocket for... um... 24 years. Except that when I did my commercial flight test, I was told I better produce and use it, or I would be failed there and then.

When being PPC'd on the Caravan last week, I was given memory items to be able to recall, with no opportunity to look for a checklist, when drilled in flight. But, I would have failed the PPC, had I not referred to the checklist at the appropriate occasions.

Don't get in the habit of abandoning the checklist completely, another pilot with whom you fly one day is going to object, and you insurance company might not be keen either....

Pilot DAR - what I said is for simple aeroplanes.

U/C up for forced landing? Of course! When I was flying the Yak52 I knew that. Try pulling out a checklist and reading it when the engine goes bang at 500 feet! You neeed to know your aeroplane!

If I flew with 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! They don't come much simpler than the Chippy (or C150, 172, PA38, 28 etc). If, after more than a few tens of P1 hours on these sort of simple types, you NEED to refer to a checklist, you need to ask yourself if you are really up to it. A checklist on these simple types is a band aid covering a hole in a pilot's capability and knowledge of his aeroplane.

Renting Pa28s, C150/2s, C172s in the US, from 6 different FBOs, I've found their checklists MUCH shorter than the 5 UK schools I've used, for the same aircraft. ( A card, as opposed to a booklet.) And the UK lists had to be bought - the US lists were in the cockpit.

Yes, I'd agree with that, though I was thinking of the much more routine landing of an amphibian on water, when you're not pumping adrenaline, and things are "normal". Leaving the wheels down doing that is very easy, there are usually no warning systems, and it is life threatening.

It's so easy to "get into the groove" with a plane, and abandon the checklist. I used to fly a Cessna 207, which I modified for research work. The plane fit like a glove, it's a simple (albeit heavy simple) plane. Yes, there were occasions where the use of the paper checklist (which I had written for the modified aircraft) slipped my mind - I knew the plane, it was simple. Then one day, after taxiing to a final stop on the ramp, I saw some people approaching, though not dangerously close. Being conscientious, I shut down, without using the checklist. I wiped out a whole bunch of research data, because the electrical power changeover was not done before shutdown. I was able to explain away the need for safety with people on the apron, but in truth, I muffed it, because I did not use the paper checklist, for this simple airplane (it was just one more switch!).

The Caravan is pretty simple too, and I was temped to not use the checklist in certain phases of flight last week, because it was so simple, but being new to the plane, I just did not want to risk a flameout, or some very simple error ('cause it is a simple plane) which I would have to explain later. I think I mentioned somewhere else, that I'm a "fraidy cat" about having to admit and explain my mistakes, so I try not to have to.

I got 172 home today without the checklist (okay, I don't know if it has one outside the Flight Manual), but I have a bit more familiarity than some of the newer pilots here. I would still be responsible for a burned out fuel pump though, 'cause I forgot to turn it off airborne, and it ran for the whole flight. Oh, and I forgot the cowl flaps too, until top of descent.

Yeah, this is a "do as I say, but not as I do" subject. I say you should always use the paper checklist, but I do expect that every pilot who does not, with the consent of the aircraft owner, can recite the contents of the checklist for the type they are flying, without missing anything. When I did my Caravan PPC, the pilot checking me could not find the checklist for me, and she had flown the plane in 30 minutes earlier.....

Aircraft moving - do checks from memory
Aircraft stationary - use checklist or similar

I have never heard of that in Canada. Is it a documented procedure elsewhere? Is is applicable to certain aircraft types?

Excellent :)

Can't you just combine this one with the "water rudders up" memory item?

No, don't think so, just my own personal opinion of how I think it should be done FWIW. Really just for club type, simple singles.

Water rudder retracts with the tailwheel, so if you've checked the gear, you've got the water rudder where it needs to be. Good example though!

I'm not familiar with that type.

Okay,

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:

I've approved a modified fuel system in a Chipmunk, which had a checklist item. The pilot is supposed to completely ignore it, 'cause the other pilot frowns on checklists in general? And completely subvert the approval process, which was thorough, in documenting the modification?

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....

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 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

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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....

Ooops, I thought that was "SEP"

SPA: Single Pilot Airplane?

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....

True. I think it's a rather new term which was invented in conjunction with the Multi Pilot Licence (MPL), which was intendend for Multi Pilot Aircraft (MPA).

Oh, and there I was thinking MPL was "Mega Petrol Litres" and MPA was "Mega Pascals"!

Hmm, Where's my checklist....?

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

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.