New Cessna 172 Checklist
Guest
Posts: n/a
Full marks to you Speedbird for your level headed reply. Now to clarify my view on checklists as a policy, and then I won't bore people any more. It has been my personal experience with ab-initio students that if they are given (or purchase)a checklist to operate the aircraft, then more often and not they will thumb down the list line by line in order to find out what to do next. This is not the most efficient way to go. Because, inexorably the student will now always rely on this checklist as a crutch.
Faced without a checklist that has suddenly blown out the door, the student stumbles nervously desperately trying to remember what item constituted line No 7 on the approach checks. Remember, this is all hypothetical.
If he had been taught to use his checklist as a confirmation of drills already completed, then he would have gained self reliance and confident in the knowledge that he knew all the right drills in the first place. This is how the game is played in the big jets. Do the drills by visual scan and action, then haul out the company checklist from wherever it is stowed in the cockpit, and read it.
If flying schools insisted that their checklists were executed that way, ie scan then confirm afterwards, then the printed checklist becomes an aid - not a teacher. A printed checklist can never cover every single item that may come under the term "airmanship". It is patently ludicrous to have such checklist items as check for wrinkles under the fuselage for evidence of a previous heavy landing. Or Wiggle the wings up and down to check for water that may have settled between spars in the fuel tanks. Total reliance on a written list for a walk-around inspection will ensure that those items above, and similar gems of wisdom, will not be checked. A good instructor will brief you on the nasty little things to be found during a walk around - which may not be specifically written down. That, then is the insidious danger to a student who has been brought up on a strict checklist diet.
While my personal preference is that I do not advocate written checklists in small training aircraft - for the reasons explained ad nauseum previously - I can understand that there are opposing points of view. That's life.
Faced without a checklist that has suddenly blown out the door, the student stumbles nervously desperately trying to remember what item constituted line No 7 on the approach checks. Remember, this is all hypothetical.
If he had been taught to use his checklist as a confirmation of drills already completed, then he would have gained self reliance and confident in the knowledge that he knew all the right drills in the first place. This is how the game is played in the big jets. Do the drills by visual scan and action, then haul out the company checklist from wherever it is stowed in the cockpit, and read it.
If flying schools insisted that their checklists were executed that way, ie scan then confirm afterwards, then the printed checklist becomes an aid - not a teacher. A printed checklist can never cover every single item that may come under the term "airmanship". It is patently ludicrous to have such checklist items as check for wrinkles under the fuselage for evidence of a previous heavy landing. Or Wiggle the wings up and down to check for water that may have settled between spars in the fuel tanks. Total reliance on a written list for a walk-around inspection will ensure that those items above, and similar gems of wisdom, will not be checked. A good instructor will brief you on the nasty little things to be found during a walk around - which may not be specifically written down. That, then is the insidious danger to a student who has been brought up on a strict checklist diet.
While my personal preference is that I do not advocate written checklists in small training aircraft - for the reasons explained ad nauseum previously - I can understand that there are opposing points of view. That's life.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Speedbird252 thank you for your apology.
I have to add that I’m not the only person making comments in this thread. The replies I entered where of my opinion only, and not to be taken to heart. It seems that some people have used this thread to make personal attacks on Centaurus.
My point is that I have seen many checklists printed into small books. Sad to say I have never come across a good one. The best checklist available in my opinion comes directly from the Pilot Operating Handbook.
Thats is if you need a checklist, get it from the POH.
[This message has been edited by Flight Deck (edited 02 April 2001).]
I have to add that I’m not the only person making comments in this thread. The replies I entered where of my opinion only, and not to be taken to heart. It seems that some people have used this thread to make personal attacks on Centaurus.
My point is that I have seen many checklists printed into small books. Sad to say I have never come across a good one. The best checklist available in my opinion comes directly from the Pilot Operating Handbook.
Thats is if you need a checklist, get it from the POH.
[This message has been edited by Flight Deck (edited 02 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
If I understand everyone correctly, nobody is therefore opposed to checklists per se.
Centaurus is opposed to misuse of checklists (as am I) and FlightDeck is opposed to bad checklists (as am I).
My advice to a student would be to use a good one, making their own from the POH if necessary, and use it, not as a crutch because they can't be bothered to spend some time sitting in the aircraft on the ground when the weather's too bad to do circuits, and not as a do list but as a checklist.
But most certainly to use one.
Centaurus is opposed to misuse of checklists (as am I) and FlightDeck is opposed to bad checklists (as am I).
My advice to a student would be to use a good one, making their own from the POH if necessary, and use it, not as a crutch because they can't be bothered to spend some time sitting in the aircraft on the ground when the weather's too bad to do circuits, and not as a do list but as a checklist.
But most certainly to use one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
And I said much the same thing back on the previous page. However, I did take it a step further because we have to teach the student to do the checks in the first place, or they will never be scans supported by a checklist.
For sure, by its' very name, it is a list of things upon which the pilot should check himself/herself. That makes it, in fact, a very beneficial defacto effoh.
It is my contention that most pilots started their flight training using some sort of checklist. If they had good instructors along the way, the checklist -- which started out basically as a "DO list, gradually assumes it proper roll as a support tool. That is, as opposed to staying on as a crutch.
We all had to get in the habit of doing all the checks -- and doing them in a logical and meaningful sequence. How on earth did we all learn that particular skill?? I know how I learned it initially and I know how I passed that learning along to my trainees.
I reckon that the best default situation is to have a checklist, rather than try to wing it without one. This conecpt is as true in a C152 as in a B747 or anything else. You certainly must get to the stage of performing all scans and vital actions at the appropriate time and then confirm off a checklist. But you have to learn them in the first place to know what the hell you're doing in the second place.
The real bottom line, in relation to the post that started this thread, is that we should be encouraging use of the checklist with low-time infrequent flyers.
------------------
Once a king, always a king.
But once a nite's barely adequate!
For sure, by its' very name, it is a list of things upon which the pilot should check himself/herself. That makes it, in fact, a very beneficial defacto effoh.
It is my contention that most pilots started their flight training using some sort of checklist. If they had good instructors along the way, the checklist -- which started out basically as a "DO list, gradually assumes it proper roll as a support tool. That is, as opposed to staying on as a crutch.
We all had to get in the habit of doing all the checks -- and doing them in a logical and meaningful sequence. How on earth did we all learn that particular skill?? I know how I learned it initially and I know how I passed that learning along to my trainees.
I reckon that the best default situation is to have a checklist, rather than try to wing it without one. This conecpt is as true in a C152 as in a B747 or anything else. You certainly must get to the stage of performing all scans and vital actions at the appropriate time and then confirm off a checklist. But you have to learn them in the first place to know what the hell you're doing in the second place.
The real bottom line, in relation to the post that started this thread, is that we should be encouraging use of the checklist with low-time infrequent flyers.
------------------
Once a king, always a king.
But once a nite's barely adequate!
I am actually a bit surprised that this thread has lasted for so long!
When I instructed in light aircraft, I issued students with a checklist, but required them to learn and perform checks from memory (using a mnemonic checklist) while flying.
The arguement that "if it is good enough for the airlines, it must be good for light aircraft" completely ignores the different environments. It is a horses for courses thing.
Written checklists have a lower propensity for error, but require more "heads-in" time. Mnenomic checks may lead to a higher chance for error, but are less distracting. Post-action checklists (the "scan then check" system) require more time to complete, and thus greater flightdeck time managment.
So with light, single pilot, aircraft where the consequences of an error are small, and the traffic is busy (as most operations are based on "see and aviod") the mnemonic check is appropriate. Forget to set the flaps in a 172, on 99% of runways, and you will hardly notice. Miss sighting another aircraft and you are in serious trouble.
Single pilot, complex aircraft (like a King Air) require a greater care in system settings, and so a written check becomes appropriate. The single pilot situation doesn't really allow for the longer post-action "scan and check" system, so an action check is a good compromise. Ticking off items as you go is faster than doing items by scan, and then checking them off a list, but you still have the memory protection of a written checklist.
Jet multi-crew, operating in an environment with positive trafic separation and with the flightdeck managment and co-ordination skills provided by multi-crew training, make the use of a post action "check and scan" checklist system appropriate. The big advantage of this, is that it allows for substantial cross checking. Each item can be done by one crew member, then checked by the other during the checklist. Double checks like that are not particularly relevent in single pilot situations. (Yes, I know checking something again in single pilot ops is always good, practically however when you miss something the first time the presupposition that you have completed that item can cause you to perform a false second check.)
My two cents anyway.
[This message has been edited by Checkboard (edited 04 April 2001).]
When I instructed in light aircraft, I issued students with a checklist, but required them to learn and perform checks from memory (using a mnemonic checklist) while flying.
The arguement that "if it is good enough for the airlines, it must be good for light aircraft" completely ignores the different environments. It is a horses for courses thing.
Written checklists have a lower propensity for error, but require more "heads-in" time. Mnenomic checks may lead to a higher chance for error, but are less distracting. Post-action checklists (the "scan then check" system) require more time to complete, and thus greater flightdeck time managment.
So with light, single pilot, aircraft where the consequences of an error are small, and the traffic is busy (as most operations are based on "see and aviod") the mnemonic check is appropriate. Forget to set the flaps in a 172, on 99% of runways, and you will hardly notice. Miss sighting another aircraft and you are in serious trouble.
Single pilot, complex aircraft (like a King Air) require a greater care in system settings, and so a written check becomes appropriate. The single pilot situation doesn't really allow for the longer post-action "scan and check" system, so an action check is a good compromise. Ticking off items as you go is faster than doing items by scan, and then checking them off a list, but you still have the memory protection of a written checklist.
Jet multi-crew, operating in an environment with positive trafic separation and with the flightdeck managment and co-ordination skills provided by multi-crew training, make the use of a post action "check and scan" checklist system appropriate. The big advantage of this, is that it allows for substantial cross checking. Each item can be done by one crew member, then checked by the other during the checklist. Double checks like that are not particularly relevent in single pilot situations. (Yes, I know checking something again in single pilot ops is always good, practically however when you miss something the first time the presupposition that you have completed that item can cause you to perform a false second check.)
My two cents anyway.
[This message has been edited by Checkboard (edited 04 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Huggy... my turn to say "spot on", mate!
Checkie... how regularly did your students fly? Were they all looking for a career in professional aviation? Or, perhaps at least some of them were only going as far as a PPL? I don't ask that last question to demean PPLs in any way ... the simple fact is that most of them don't fly quite as often as the rest of us.
Practice is what makes perfect. Without the continuity, what chance does any pilot have of keeping any checklist in memory? Having been an instructor myself, I know the answer to that question as well as you do.
How many times have you heard of an aeroplane landing on its belly? The checklist, itself, won't prevent such an occurrence, but it can sure as hell be argued that the "memory system" failed the acid test. It's all discipline, of course, but even THAT has to start somewhere.
I've always believed in starting with the imposed discipline of a checklist. It lays the ground rules for good airmanship, no matter how you interpret that word.
The best checklist system I've found, to cover all those airborne checks, is the type that mounts on the glareshield -- plastic tags that you flip down in the pre-take-off and climbout checks, or flip up in the approach and pre-landing checks.
They facilitate looking outside the plane as you're going along. They hold the place that you get up to in the checks, which is just great if you get distracted for any reason. And they're easy to use. They're not on all aircraft but I've flown quite a few aircraft, even in commercial operations, that were fitted with them. Made life very much easier, especially on high workload, short sector flights.
------------------
Once a king, always a king.
But once a nite's barely adequate!
Checkie... how regularly did your students fly? Were they all looking for a career in professional aviation? Or, perhaps at least some of them were only going as far as a PPL? I don't ask that last question to demean PPLs in any way ... the simple fact is that most of them don't fly quite as often as the rest of us.
Practice is what makes perfect. Without the continuity, what chance does any pilot have of keeping any checklist in memory? Having been an instructor myself, I know the answer to that question as well as you do.
How many times have you heard of an aeroplane landing on its belly? The checklist, itself, won't prevent such an occurrence, but it can sure as hell be argued that the "memory system" failed the acid test. It's all discipline, of course, but even THAT has to start somewhere.
I've always believed in starting with the imposed discipline of a checklist. It lays the ground rules for good airmanship, no matter how you interpret that word.
The best checklist system I've found, to cover all those airborne checks, is the type that mounts on the glareshield -- plastic tags that you flip down in the pre-take-off and climbout checks, or flip up in the approach and pre-landing checks.
They facilitate looking outside the plane as you're going along. They hold the place that you get up to in the checks, which is just great if you get distracted for any reason. And they're easy to use. They're not on all aircraft but I've flown quite a few aircraft, even in commercial operations, that were fitted with them. Made life very much easier, especially on high workload, short sector flights.
------------------
Once a king, always a king.
But once a nite's barely adequate!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I recently hitched a ride with a couple of instructors in a seminole and was extremely glad that they went through the takeoff checklist line-by-line.
It turned out that in one of the last things they checked, the master was only on on the battery side.
It was certainly nice to know that we were assured of power, especially flying into IMC, as we did that day.
It turned out that in one of the last things they checked, the master was only on on the battery side.
It was certainly nice to know that we were assured of power, especially flying into IMC, as we did that day.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I flew as observer a little while ago, in a country where English is not the language. I was preparing something else when I thought that the pilot was doing the externals, I found out afterwards from a 3rd party that the chap hadn't done any. He certainly didn't do anything in the cockpit, simply started the engine and took off whilst I was waiting for his take-off brief. The take-off run was ludicrously long, we discovered afterwards (when the tyre destroyed itself on the next sortie, taking the nosewheel with it) that the tyre pressure was well below limits.
I have to confess for a preference where it's reasonable to do so to use Mnemonics backed up by an available checklist. Used well they are as thorough, faster, and keep your head outside. However, I'd only do that on a type I know well.
There are a lot of checklists I recently found, downloadable at http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUC...tes/index.html
G
[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 06 April 2001).]
I have to confess for a preference where it's reasonable to do so to use Mnemonics backed up by an available checklist. Used well they are as thorough, faster, and keep your head outside. However, I'd only do that on a type I know well.
There are a lot of checklists I recently found, downloadable at http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUC...tes/index.html
G
[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 06 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
If had been given a penny for all the times I had heard the use of checklists debated then I might be a rich man.
However, I am firmly in favour of checklists and agree wholeheartedly with Hugmonster et al.
Another factor in favour is that it is much easier to achieve a better degree of standardisation when checklists are used, otherwise you get the "well so-and-so told me to do it this way" syndrome where, as an instructor, you can end up using precious time discussing trivia.
All this assumes that the use of checklists is taught correctly.
Having seen the civil and the military way of "doing it" I have to say that, in my opinion, the RAF are living in the past by sticking to the memory way of doing things in their ab initio training.
Obviously, emergency checks and "airborne" checks etc need to be memorised but, as has been stated previously, the checklist can then be referred to in order to ensure that all actions have been carried out correctly.
------------------
However, I am firmly in favour of checklists and agree wholeheartedly with Hugmonster et al.
Another factor in favour is that it is much easier to achieve a better degree of standardisation when checklists are used, otherwise you get the "well so-and-so told me to do it this way" syndrome where, as an instructor, you can end up using precious time discussing trivia.
All this assumes that the use of checklists is taught correctly.
Having seen the civil and the military way of "doing it" I have to say that, in my opinion, the RAF are living in the past by sticking to the memory way of doing things in their ab initio training.
Obviously, emergency checks and "airborne" checks etc need to be memorised but, as has been stated previously, the checklist can then be referred to in order to ensure that all actions have been carried out correctly.
------------------
