Checklist Template

MedEwok wrote:

the design will most definitely and without exception be outdated!

Hmmm… Avionics, or other STC’d modifications notwithstanding, for a “1970’s” era plane, the plane must also be outdated. I’m certainly not saying that the “older” checklists follow the most recent wisdom in human factors, and agreed, format changes might make the 1970’s era checklist more pilot friendly, but since the 1970’s, those checklists have worked. Spartan content and format cast the checklist in it’s intended role – a checklist, to be used to check that the pilot has operated the airplane as intended, rather than an instruction sheet as to how to fly it and what to do.

If an artistic person would like to take the content of the POH, or other approved checklist for an airplane, and make it more modern in format, while not negatively affecting its usability, it would still be an approved checklist, just reformatted. It is the changing the content which pops up red flags for me. The minute I see a home made checklist deviate from the POH or other approved checklist for the plane, I’m forced to verify the entire checklist for completeness. I’m unwilling to do that at the beginning of a flight, so I’ll stow it, and use the POH.

If you picked up the plane from maintenance, and in passing the maintainer said: …. “yeah, the inspection is complete, though we did not use Cessna’s Service Manual, we used instructions we wrote.” would you pause, and wonder if everything had been accomplished correctly? Yes, I have found errors, or deliberate efforts in maintenance instructions to remove maintenance information (generally to drive up parts sales), and have had approved new instructions for that maintenance. So, as the maintainer, I could say to the owner/pilot: “… yeah, we did not use Continental’s Service Manual for that part of the maintenance, we used the STC approved instructions we wrote for that task. The rest conforms to Continental’s manual.” You’d be okay. You’d know that the document has been through a thorough review, and found to comply. Shouldn’t a pilot checklist receive the same vigilance?

Years ago, I was responsible for the review of a proposed new Flight Manual for a well known light twin, by the manufacturer of the aircraft. This type already had an approved Flight Manual, though an engine change resulted in the need to change the Flight Manual. I stated to see things which alarmed me, so the review deepened. It ended up being an 18 hour task, with many pages of comments. I recall considering some checklist items which had been changed since the previous version of the Flight Manual. Memorable for me was: (under Abnormal Procedures) Electrical Discharge – Extend Landing Gear. I was puzzled, why slow and extend the gear in cruise flight, just because you had an electrical problem. So I asked the Director, and he and I went to discuss it with the fellow who had written this. One of my first questions of the writer was: Are you a pilot? No, he was not. Next question: Has the company legal team reviewed this? No, you’re the first. “Okay, well the legal team either will or should reject this item.”. With a puzzled look on the writer’s face, I went on to explain that if the failure occurred a long way from a suitable airport, the flight may, and could continue for some time with an electrical failure (it was not a “land at first opportunity” event). If the plane were slowed, and the gear extended, it simply might not make it to the destination, running out of fuel first. The risk and severity of running out of fuel, and an off airport landing was greater than the smaller risk that the gear could not later be electrically lowered, and the manual extension also failed. The writer had not considered the unintended consequences, just the possible direct effect that an electrical failure could make the primary landing gear extension not work. With that, I reviewed the rest of the new Flight Manual and checklist in great detail, and recommended many changes to assure the most safe outcome from using it.

A lot of thinking goes into the content and order of actions in checklists. It’s not that a home made checklist can’t get this all right, but as soon as it is changed, a qualified review would be wise – hence the expectation that it be approved.

@Pilot_Dar
I concur with all of your analysis and also recognise your extreme knowledge and experience.
I don’t think we are far apart, in so much as If you were to fly my aircraft and wanted to see the official Checklist, I wouldn’t think anything of it and produce it for you, and fully understand why.
My modified checklists are always a reproduction of the official list condensed into a format that my brain responds to, and omits only items I will either automatically do, due to care and or airmanship. Ie choosing to point into wind or not, for power checks, retracting flaps before taxi (based on my liking or not of the surface) mag dead-cut check on my cold engine.
I think this adds to my overall safety as I’m resonding to assist my own human fallibility.
I also add items missing.
In my aftermarket Cessna list it doesn’t remind me to check altimeter subscale, and as I fly from a non-radio field, very occasionally I’ve missed that and required a radio call locally to get sorted.

The InDesign Source File is located here:

Is there an alternative editable format for the not so sophisticated user? I have never heard of InDesign and hardly use programs outside of MS Office……

The Pa28, C150, C152, and C172 checklists I’ve used in the UK, from 1965, are all multipage booklets.
The checklists supplied with US rental aircraft are all a single card.
The cards include useful radio emergency problem solving procedures not in any of the UK booklets.
I’ve copied the Bolkow checklist from the manual.
I’ve copied and modified the Jodel one.
I misunderstood the Bolkow check for “foreign objects in cockpit” until I trapped a wasp on closing the canopy, and didn’t notice until airborne.

I happen to have Adobe Indesign CS6 but this file needs a later version, and I will never go to the £10/month scheme

I do agree with Pilot_DAR and I also know he speaks from a lot of experience.

For the TB20 there is no usable checklist. None has ever been published in one piece AFAIK. The POH contains bits of checklists spread around it. But the POH has not been changed since 1988… I extracted these into one checklist, and added avionics-specific items.

Thank you; unfortunately it doesn’t quite get there

I think for some of us old pilots you would need to do it in Corel Draw

Peter wrote:

I think for some of us old pilots you would need to do it in Corel Draw

No, LaTeX, as in yours truly’s checklist <ducking>

thomas_witt wrote:

Using only one sans serif typeface throughout the whole checklist

Actually, for my personal use, I rather disagree. I always found Serif fonts to be easier to read; there are more clues for my eyes.

lionel wrote:

No, LaTeX, as in yours truly’s checklist

Yay!