Of course it is
Remember that just about every certified GA aircraft manufactured since the 1907s will have a checklist provided as a part of it’s type design – you really have no excuse for not using that checklist. You’ll also notice that flight manuals/POH’s usually contain wording to the effect that the use of that document (which includes the checklist) is not a substitute for basic flying instruction and skill.
What they mean by that is that there are some required actions which are memory items, basic to any aircraft, and not mentioned in the manufacturer’s checklist. Those should be basic memorized pilot skills. It should not be necessary for a pilot to have to read them in a checklist, particularly an emergency checklist. A part of checklist philosophy is brevity, and clarity. I’ve seen horrendously confusing and distracting checklists, with repeated items, and actions out of the natural order.
I’m not against pilots using checklists, but I’m reluctant to accept “home made”, or well meaning commercial products, which bury the pilot in additional information and instruction, as if to absolve the pilot of maintaining the basic memory items both for flying in general and for the type. The use of a verbose non approved checklist is as likely to get you into more trouble with accident investigators, who will simply ask you why you did not use the manufacturer’s checklist. My exception to this is the careful combination of the POH checklist, and a relevent checklist found in approved flight manual supplements for that specific aircraft. Complex avionics, or changed configurations can make that a good idea. But this is a merging exercise, not an inventing one. If you feel that you really need that extra mental jolt to get it right, probably best to sit in a quiet cockpit, and review, recite and practice those basic memory items so they become second nature, and thereafter, use the aircraft manufacturer’s checklist – which will be “approved” for use with that aircraft.
If a pilot turned up for type training with me, with anything other than the aircraft manufacturer’s checklist for the aircraft, we’d be having a long talk, which would result in the pilot using the approved checklist. That’s a part of the signoff. People who sit in the clubhouse, or classroom on rainy days, formulating ever more complex checklists, which include description of basic piloting skills, are not doing anyone any favours.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
If a pilot turned up for type training with me, with anything other than the aircraft manufacturer’s checklist for the aircraft, we’d be having a long talk, which would result in the pilot using the approved checklist.
Well, I have to disagree with that. It is not like there is one correct way of doing everything. No two instructors will do things the same way. I have had different instructors argue for completely different (but legal and indeed reasonable) procedures, each insisting that their way of doing it is the only right way.
Why should a pilot with established SOPs (which will influence the checklist) have to change them for a checkout just because that’s what the particular instructor wants? That’s not something that will improve safety. It’s driving me crazy when I fly with an instructor who insists that I should be doing things their way as long as there is nothing wrong with how I am used to doing it.
Also, some manufacturer’s checklists are more instructions on how to use the aircraft rather than actual checklists — which is exactly what you were arguing against!
Interesting but if submit the manufacturers checklist as part of CPL application to the CAA. Then that checklist aling with your application will get rejected.
What is the reason?
It is not like there is one correct way of doing everything. No two instructors will do things the same way.Quote
And here in lies a big problem: Why would different instructors do things so differently while flying the same plane that a different checklist is the result. A checklist is just that, to assure a consistent “check” of what the pilot has already done, because they know how the plane is to be flown. I don’t mind of a pilot flies in accordance with SOPs, unless those SOPs actually conflict with the manufacturer’s (and any supplemental) approved procedures. I don’t really care when the pilot extends the landing gear, as long as the prelanding checklist is used at a suitable occasion before landing. But, if the pilot produces a 30 item prelanding checklist, where the manufacturer’s list is eight items, I have a problem with that – 22 items which either the pilot should just know, or are needless, are now diluting the checklist, and distracting the pilot from the core tasks.
In an airline environment, there will be one approved checklist, and the pilots are required to use it. This is to assure crew harmony. Why should GA be any different?
I see a pilot’s head go down to try to find where they left off in a silly long home made checklist, and one of two things happens: They forget where they were when they were interrupted and miss something as they continue from the wrong place, or they must start all over, there’s just that much more time of head in, when it should be out, flying the plane. If checklists are short, and to the point, they will have the best chance of being used properly – to check that the correct action has already been performed.
I’ve seen home made checklists, which obviously combined required items now required because of a modification. Perfect, that’s necessary! When a fixed gear C180/182/185 is modified, and now configured with retractable landing gear, I’m delighted to see an amended checklist to assure that landing gear position is confirmed before each landing. But, when I see a home made checklist which says to: “call the base turn”, No, that’s basic airmanship, and if you need a checklist to remind you to do that, it’s already too late.
This is not a one size fits all argument, there are reasons to use a modified checklist. But, if the plane you fly comes with one from the manufacturer, and it’s applicable to that aircraft’s configuration, it should be used, there should not be a market for after market home made checklists.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
But, if the plane you fly comes with one from the manufacturer, and it’s applicable to that aircraft’s configuration, it should be used, there should not be a market for after market home made checklists.
So how do you view a manufacturer’s landing checklist with items such as “POWER – reduce to idle” and “TOUCHDOWN – main wheels first”? I will not use such checklists for exactly the reason you mention.
(Can you guess the make and model of aircraft?)
many manufacturer’s checklists are horrible, but the after market checklists are worse. They tend to be do-lists, and the format provided (pages in the POH) is unusable in practice
It is easy to say “do as the manufacturer says”, but same as in maintenance, what works in the airline and jet world does not translate well into a fleet that has not seen much progress in human factors thinking, sensible SOP design etc in decades
Ps – i always write my own. They are based on the POH, but there are two main differences beyond formatting – they have a sensible flow rather than the sometimes poor sequencing, and are adjusted to the actual equipment so don’t include checks for equipment not installed, and additional checks for stuff that is installed.
I hate them, they are still too much do-lists; they tend to sit in the side pocket; they will be great for abnormal procedures and emergency procedures, but for nothing else.
A great example is the one for the external checks. Three pointless pages.
The actual checklist To be used when entering the aircraft is:
– controls
– fuel
– oil
– pitot
– static
– hatches and latches
– chocks and tiedowns
Because nothing else will kill me, or embarrass me mortally. I don’t need to be reminded to check for general condition, that there should be no ice, to check the drains, look in the wheel wells and check the tires… i do all that, but tte checklist is a backstop.
