Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Custom Checklists

Airborne_Again wrote:

Airborne_Again28-Sep-23 20:5146
Yeager wrote:
Do you know if there is any difference in this regard (self produced checklists), between a commercial-DTO and non-commercial DTO (assuming your club is a non-commercial DTO..)? Thank you.
AFAIK the commercial/non-commercial ATO/DTO distinction is relevant only for maintenance. The ops rules are the same (NCO).

Ok, thank you for answering. Sorry for being lazy just asking, instead of looking up. Appreciate it.

Socata Rally MS.893E
Portugal

Yeager wrote:

Do you know if there is any difference in this regard (self produced checklists), between a commercial-DTO and non-commercial DTO (assuming your club is a non-commercial DTO..)? Thank you.

AFAIK the commercial/non-commercial ATO/DTO distinction is relevant only for maintenance. The ops rules are the same (NCO).

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I love me a good reference, thank you, Cobalt!

tmo
EPKP - Kraków, Poland

Airborne_Again wrote:

Airborne_Again28-Sep-23 11:2042
ErlendV wrote:
I’m not able to find references on this, but I’m sure there are if you say so :)
The “local” CAA is of the opinion that “should” is the same as “shall” in AltMOC.

The AMC to NCO.GEN.105 says that you “should” use the manufacturer’s checklists, but for NCO you can devise your own AltMOC’s with needing approval.

NCO.GEN.101: Alternative means of compliance to those adopted by the Agency may be used by an operator to establish compliance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules.

Nothing says that you need approval for AltMOCs. Indeed, my club exclusively use our own checklists and the Swedish CAA did not made any comment on that when they did a very through inspection of our DTO earlier this year.

Arguably, many manufacturer checklists are impossible to use in practise. My favourite is the Cessna 172 POH landing checklist item “TOUCH DOWN – MAIN WHEELS FIRST.”

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 28 Sep 11:21

Do you know if there is any difference in this regard (self produced checklists), between a commercial-DTO and non-commercial DTO (assuming your club is a non-commercial DTO..)? Thank you.

Socata Rally MS.893E
Portugal

ErlendV wrote:

The “local” CAA is of the opinion that “should” is the same as “shall” in AltMOC.

They are plain wrong. The EU Commission in their style guide clearly states

10.26. Positive imperative. To impose an obligation or a requirement, EU legislation uses shall.

Biggin Hill

ErlendV wrote:

I’m not able to find references on this, but I’m sure there are if you say so :)

The “local” CAA is of the opinion that “should” is the same as “shall” in AltMOC.

The AMC to NCO.GEN.105 says that you “should” use the manufacturer’s checklists, but for NCO you can devise your own AltMOC’s with needing approval.

NCO.GEN.101: Alternative means of compliance to those adopted by the Agency may be used by an operator to establish compliance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules.

Nothing says that you need approval for AltMOCs. Indeed, my club exclusively use our own checklists and the Swedish CAA did not made any comment on that when they did a very through inspection of our DTO earlier this year.

Arguably, many manufacturer checklists are impossible to use in practise. My favourite is the Cessna 172 POH landing checklist item “TOUCH DOWN – MAIN WHEELS FIRST.”

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 28 Sep 11:21
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

As far as approval goes, in EASA-land you don’t have to use approved checklists for non-commercial operations with non-complex aircraft.

I’m not able to find references on this, but I’m sure there are if you say so :)

The “local” CAA is of the opinion that “should” is the same as “shall” in AltMOC. So, 40-50 year old POH checklists (without any e.g. IFR specific items) are used. In my opinion, that’s just silly and dangerous…

FI, ATPL TKI and aviation writer
ENKJ, ENRK, Norway

I’ve just checked the approved checklist of an ATO with CPL/IR approval. Its over 80 pages long!

Mooney_Driver wrote:

With today’s age of the airframes, almost none of them are in the original conditon, all of them will have to have custom made checklists.

Yes I agree. A 1960’s airplane predates formal flight manual formatting, and some serious effort at checklists. Hopefully the mods on the aircraft are accompanied by flight manual supplements with their own checklists. It is an important exercise to assure that supplemental information is properly incorporated in flight manual, and, maintenance information too!

I don’t know about the CAA, but in North America, a POH (rewritten one) may require formal approval as an aircraft certification effort. Certain certification basis aircraft require certain flight manual (POH) provisions. Airlines may have operational approval opportunities which are not available to GA aircraft.

A well though out, succinct checklist, which specifies the required elements, without becoming a “to do” list is appropriate. It’s the home made, or worse aftermarket money grabber, verbose checklists which are inappropriate.

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada

PilotDAR,

I hear what you are saying but there are massive problems with most of the POH Checklists in daily life. Just as an example, my airplane was built in 1965 and has not got a checklist per se in the POH, just some fractions in various chapters. It has been massively modified since, lots of new equipment, autopilot, EFIS e.t.c. which were not even an issue when the POH was written.

So we had to do something to make us a proper operational checklist for our airplane which includes all this.

On the ground, we made it quite elaborate, because there you have time and there you also should prepare everything such that it won’t bother you in the air.
In Flight, we use the absolute minimum necessary. In both conditions, we included everything which the POH has to offer unless it is no longer valid (eg the Mooney Positive Control is no longer there therefore it does not get checked either obviously).

With today’s age of the airframes, almost none of them are in the original conditon, all of them will have to have custom made checklists. When the airplane was last inspected by the CAA for the ARC they looked at the new checklist and were happy with it.

I agree however that it might be a good idea to actually not only rewrite the checklist but the POH as well, as airlines do it, and then have the lot approved by the CAA. It’s a project I have but have not yet done anything as I am too busy with other stuff right now, but it would make a whole lot of sense seeing how the old POH’s are done. I did ask the CAA’s inspector about it and he said no problem, hand it in together with the original and we’ll approve it if it’s ok and tell you what to ammend if not.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
47 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top