Wikiposts
Search
Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning A wide ranging forum for issues facing Aviation Professionals and Academics

Research into checklist usage

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 30th Sep 2013, 20:01
  #1 (permalink)  

ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Research into checklist usage

Gents,

As I don't have Athens access, I can't afford to hit-and-miss - so was wondering if someone might point me in the direction of one or two good studies or evidence-based articles regarding which checklist technique (specifically, "read-and-do" vs. "flow-followed-by-challenge-response-checklist") works best under what circumstances.

My intuition tells me that "read-and-do" is disastrous for normal ops, but works very well when we are less familiar with the subject, i.e. non-normals and perhaps supplementary procedures. Can't sell intuition, though - so will need some scientific data to confirm or deny that 6th sense...

In advance thanks for your assistance
Empty Cruise is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 21:53
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 2,197
Received 168 Likes on 106 Posts
Try a search on Flight Safety Foundation - and possibly within that site, NASA studies-checklists etc. I recall a couple of good papers. Points made were:

Short. Simple. Responses to state the switch position or selection e.g. 'auto' 'on' '15 degrees' etc and NOT simply 'set' or 'checked'.

One interesting variation I used and liked had its genesis with British Airways (I think).
Whichever pilot did the check, or flow of checks, then read the checklist, and the OTHER pilot looked at the selections and made the responses. It really forced both to participate fully.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 06:10
  #3 (permalink)  

ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for that, Mach.

Did find those papers, and they do mention the advantages of challenge-and-response, i.e. redundant checking and thus having 2 chances to spot an error.

FSF paper on error trapping was good as well, but did not go into benefits or draw-backs of read-and-do, although it made some good points on flow execution.

My main problem with read-and-do for normal checklists is when task gets crossed with reading, i.e. when the task is in the area of responsibility of the pilot reading the checklist. Chances of an actual cross-check being performed correctly are low, I feel - just need the data to back it up...
Empty Cruise is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 08:59
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Steady on, mach, or you'll develop logic like that into proposing BA style monitored approaches and then where would we be? Things could get awfully messy around here what with all the flying blood and guts...from the people who haven't tried it.
Agaricus bisporus is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 09:20
  #5 (permalink)  

ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yeah, not going near that can of worms...

Came across this - problem solved ;-) Flight Cognition Laboratory
Empty Cruise is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.