The biggest problem with Checklists IMO is that the ones at flight schools are very poor. They almost invariably do three things wrong
They are used as a teaching tool instead of the true function of a checklist which should be wholy to prevent an omission or action that effects flight safety
They include items which properly belong in a SOP.
They items are not arranged in a logical order so that you jump all around thr cockpit when completing the checks.
I do some part time advanced instructing at a local school. Before I started I insisted that the checklist be re done as they had all of the above faults. The new checklist ( C172) is half as long as the old one and all normal and emergency checks follow the same flow ( a counter clockwise circle stating at the fuel selector ). Checks where the aircraft is stopped on the ground or in cruise check are done as read and do check ( prestart, runup, pretakeoff, cruise, shutdown) Checks where the aircraft is moving are done as a flow with the checklist "checked" after all the actions are done if conditions allow the time to safetly be head down (line up, per landing, after landing).
As an example the prelanding check has only 4 items,
Out of interest, 'what next' might like to know that the group member who landed our Yak with the gear up was a checklist user.
Not a checklist user, but a checklist reader. As someone else just wrote, it takes a lot of discipline to use a checklist instead of just reading it.
I am sure, with all his experience, he would already have known that.
Been there, done it. And may happen again tomorrow. The best thing about experience is that it most often shows you your own shortcomings and stupidity. This is why - to come back to the landing gear example - every transport category aircraft and every aircraft above 5,7t and every multi-turbine driven aircraft regardless of take off mass (at least in EU-OPS land) must be fitted with an enhanced ground proximity warning system. This also incorporates a configuration warning that will shout "too low gear" when the gear is not down below a certain (radar-)altitude. Because even experienced people sometimes can be checklist readers instead of checklist users...
This also incorporates a configuration warning that will shout "too low gear" when the gear is not down below a certain (radar-)altitude.
So, the pilot gets used to the configuration warning system, as a "safety net". If something is wrong, it will squawk. Then the configuration warning system fails, and the pilot does not hear a squawk, so is reassured that things are as they should be.
I had to essentially check myself out in a Piper Navajo, for lack of anyone around who was qualified to fly it. I had a few hours many years earlier, but I was certainly not current. I read the flight manual manual (which is a byproduct of writing a flight test plan anyway), used the checklists, and everything went fine (indeed it's a much more forgiving aircraft than the reputation I had heard). I found that with lots of runway available, it was most happy when I carried some power into the flare - so I did. Then I realized I was defeating a safety system - the gear up warning which is triggered by the throttle levers being closed. So, in addition to using the checklist as it was intended, I made a point of closing the throttles for a moment on close final, to allow the safety system to operate as intended, then apply power again if I desired.
Some day I'm going to do something really dumb - I'm trying to out think it as long as I can....
Therefore I always think it is a bit self-righteous when amateurs, who only fly a few hours per month, think that they can do without a checklist.
Ah, now, y'see....the thing about generalisations is that they are always a bad idea (see what I did there?).
I've flown with and without checklists, privately and commercially. Their use, or otherwise, depends on a lot of factors. I've seen pilots diligently follow one and I've seen checks done just as thoroughly without. The thing about private flying is that the pilot has the choice of whether to use one or not and providing they are sensible, acknowledge their own weaknesses and strengths and decide without ego getting in the way I'd say that a lot of the time they are best placed to decide.
Humility. Good trait in a pilot.
It's always slightly bemused me that schools expend so much effort rewriting their own checklists, sometimes poorly. A bit like the way in every hospital I work in has different stationery for ordering an X-ray, which may or may not request the patient's name depending on whether whoever designed the forms had their brain turned on that morning.
Are there really any good reasons for it? Perhaps equipment differences account for part of it. And at an airport where you have to call for startup, then you will need to run the radios before starting the engine, and ideally turn them off again before turning the key.
My closest calls have been on the 'gaps' between checklists:
For example, I recently preflighted an aircraft then refuelled outside, before nearly starting the engine with the static clip still attached and a ladder in front of the right wing.
Whilst I was training I landed with full flap, dropped off my instructor, then got quite a long way towards taking off again before realising my mistake. I know how to do a touch-and go with full flap, and I know how to do a landing with full flap, and whilst in retrospect I should have done a full pre-take off check before taking off, in practice I was 'thinking' touch-and-go' and not 'land; prepare for a whole new flight; take-off again'.
My other bugbear is that most checklists seem to want you to walk round the aircraft just once, whereas I find it easier to do so several times. For example, I might turn the lights and pitot heater on, walk round the aircraft, then turn them off again (saves battery over leaving them on for the whole walkaround). Then I get the fuel tester and test all the fuel points. Then I get the stepladder and check the fuel. Then I do the walkaround proper and check everything that moves, plus the oil, static vent and brakes etc... Is this so wrong? Perhaps it's time for me to write my own checklists..?
Just to clarify what I said when I started the thread.
I have the checklist, yes, but I only actually use it for startup, power checks and pre-takeoff checks.
Everything after that, including pre-landing checks, is done from memory.
The external check is also done without the checklist, with a 'move around the aeroplane and look at everything' mentality.
John Deakin wrote something about it:
Also check his second article.
I am not sure in which camp I am and I always use a checklist at the run-up before take-off and before descent and on final I call the PUF check out loud. What I do know is that some people really need checklists to be flying safely. They follow this repeatedly systematically procedure for their check and do items, I honestly believe they will fall out of the sky if the checklist was blown out of the aircraft. So if you are a checklist type, use it. If you're not, use another reliable system you thrust.
Hello!
It seems to me that my use of the term "self-righteous" has not been taken well by some. Forgive me my wording, maybe "complacent" would have been the better choice, no offence was intended (not a native speaker and bla bla and suchlikes...).
So, the pilot gets used to the configuration warning system, as a "safety net". If something is wrong, it will squawk. Then the configuration warning system fails, and the pilot does not hear a squawk, so is reassured that things are as they should be.
That's right, and because of that, more than one line of defence has been installed. For every defence that you bypass - willingly or by mistake - the probability of an incident or accident happening increases. Willingly doing away with checklists increases this probabilty - but of course anybodys choice.
I've flown with and without checklists, privately and commercially.
So have I and I could attach a long list of (stupid) mistakes that I made - with and without checklist. Some of the more stupid ones could have been avoided by properly using the checklist. Luckily - so to say - the aircraft I fly at work has a cockpit voice recorder which forces us to read every checklist aloud to protect ourselves just in case. Which is of course no guarantee that the checklist items have really been checked, but better than nothing.
I recently saw a list of accidents and incidents of piston singles. A substantial number were forced landings (with and without damage) due to unexplained engine failures that could not be recreated and were therefore attributed to carburetor icing. Every single one of these could have been avoided by using the checklist, as on every single (that I have flown) with a carb heat control this is an item in the descent checklist, appraoch checklist and final checklist.
Happy landings max
So what we're saying is that mistakes occur with and without checklists....... IF the checklist users followed them to the letter, there wouldn't be any mistakes. IF the flow checkers memories were better, there wouldn't be any mistakes.
I hope the AAIB are reading this, we've solved half their workload.
I hope the AAIB are reading this, we've solved half their workload.
They know this already.
