Checkride Checklist Question

A fellow student and I were dsicussing something,
and we certainly intent to ask our instructors.

There are some points in the flight where the simple
(but important) checklist needs to occur.
For example, after takeoff clean-up, after landing clean-up,
before landing check list, etc . . .
Places where the basic steps are pretty easy to remember.

So - DURING THE CHECKRIDE - how important is it to pull out the
actual checklist as opposed to just doing the checklist.
I'm not talking about the complicated stuff, or things
with a lot of items.

Does the Examiner want to see the actual checklist?
Or is "getting it right" enough?
You know, something with 4 steps could take 3 seconds to complete.
Pulling out the checklist makes it 10 seconds.

Would people mind commenting on whether we have to
"go through the motions" to be "right", or to "pass".
I mean, how many people actually pull out the checklist
for the before-landing checklist in a 152?
Feul, Seatbelts, carb-heat, landing lights, etc . . .

Thanks!

I don't know what the DE would want to see, but for simple items,
reciting the checklist out loud from memory (with the cue word, such as
GUMPS) should be sufficient to convince the examiner that you know what
you're doing.

Jose
r.a.student retained, though I don't follow that group
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 8/8/2005 08:19, Gary G wrote:

A fellow student and I were dsicussing something,
and we certainly intent to ask our instructors.

There are some points in the flight where the simple
(but important) checklist needs to occur.
For example, after takeoff clean-up, after landing clean-up,
before landing check list, etc . . .
Places where the basic steps are pretty easy to remember.

So - DURING THE CHECKRIDE - how important is it to pull out the
actual checklist as opposed to just doing the checklist.
I'm not talking about the complicated stuff, or things
with a lot of items.

Does the Examiner want to see the actual checklist?
Or is "getting it right" enough?
You know, something with 4 steps could take 3 seconds to complete.
Pulling out the checklist makes it 10 seconds.

Would people mind commenting on whether we have to
"go through the motions" to be "right", or to "pass".
I mean, how many people actually pull out the checklist
for the before-landing checklist in a 152?
Feul, Seatbelts, carb-heat, landing lights, etc . . .

Thanks!


You're going to get a lot of opinions on this, I'm sure. Here's mine ;-)

During my training (both PP-ASEL and IA) my instructors never had me use
the simple check lists (I always used check lists for pre-flight, before
take off, after landing, and close down, but not for Climb, Cruise,
Descent and Before Landing).

My instructors would say that I should do it, but would never make it
part of the lesson, so it was hard for me to remember.

When I've asked about it, though, I was told that I should always do it,
and that the DE would be looking for it. However, for the simple lists,
it would be ok to do the procedure first, then soon thereafter pull out
the check list and just make sure I didn't miss anything.

This is, in fact, what I now do. It works very well, and doesn't take
any time away from the procedure itself.

In some cases, I don't have a written check list, and so I rely on a
mnemonic memory aid, like setting up for an approach or the 5 'T's, etc.

I can't imagine why a mnemonic like GUMPS would not be an acceptable
alternative to a written check list.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
During my training (both PP-ASEL and IA) my instructors never had me use
the simple check lists (I always used check lists for pre-flight, before
take off, after landing, and close down, but not for Climb, Cruise,
Descent and Before Landing)

However, for the simple lists,
it would be ok to do the procedure first, then soon thereafter pull out
the check list and just make sure I didn't miss anything.

If the procedure was a landing, it's hard to belatedly perform a missing
step afterwards. :-)

This is, in fact, what I now do. It works very well, and doesn't take
any time away from the procedure itself.

In some cases, I don't have a written check list, and so I rely on a
mnemonic memory aid, like setting up for an approach or the 5 'T's, etc.

I can't imagine why a mnemonic like GUMPS would not be an acceptable
alternative to a written check list.

I agree. I used to use checklists all the time (that's how I was taught),
but I found it to be an unnecessary distraction, and I would still
occasionally skip a step. Eventually I switched to using flows and mnemonics
instead. I find that to be at least as reliable as the checklists were. I
often review my checklists just before flying, but not during a flight.

Checklists strike me as more suitable for multi-crew aircraft where one
pilot can recite and confirm elements of the list (and literally check them
off) while another pilot performs them. But for a single-pilot plane,
memorization makes more sense to me. (This may be a minority opinion,
however.)

--Gary

On 8/8/2005 09:14, Gary Drescher wrote:

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
During my training (both PP-ASEL and IA) my instructors never had me use
the simple check lists (I always used check lists for pre-flight, before
take off, after landing, and close down, but not for Climb, Cruise,
Descent and Before Landing)

However, for the simple lists,
it would be ok to do the procedure first, then soon thereafter pull out
the check list and just make sure I didn't miss anything.

If the procedure was a landing, it's hard to belatedly perform a missing
step afterwards. :-)

The check list is for the "before landing" tasks. For example:

- seat belts
- carb heat
- flaps
- etc.

Once you've performed this check list from memory, you can pull out the
hard copy and make sure nothing was missed.

At least, that was the intent of my comments.


This is, in fact, what I now do. It works very well, and doesn't take
any time away from the procedure itself.

In some cases, I don't have a written check list, and so I rely on a
mnemonic memory aid, like setting up for an approach or the 5 'T's, etc.

I can't imagine why a mnemonic like GUMPS would not be an acceptable
alternative to a written check list.

I agree. I used to use checklists all the time (that's how I was taught),
but I found it to be an unnecessary distraction, and I would still
occasionally skip a step. Eventually I switched to using flows and mnemonics
instead. I find that to be at least as reliable as the checklists were. I
often review my checklists just before flying, but not during a flight.

Checklists strike me as more suitable for multi-crew aircraft where one
pilot can recite and confirm elements of the list (and literally check them
off) while another pilot performs them. But for a single-pilot plane,
memorization makes more sense to me. (This may be a minority opinion,
however.)

--Gary

But, of course, we're talking about a fairly new pilot (the topic is
with regard to a check ride), and I don't think a pilot can go wrong
with performing the checks from memory, then following up with the
hard copy check list to make sure nothing was missed. At least, I've
been taught that the examiner would view this as a good use of the
check list.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 8/8/2005 09:14, Gary Drescher wrote:
If the procedure was a landing, it's hard to belatedly perform a missing
step afterwards. :-)

The check list is for the "before landing" tasks. [...]
Once you've performed this check list from memory, you can pull out the
hard copy and make sure nothing was missed.

At least, that was the intent of my comments.

Yup, I was just making a feeble attempt at humor.

But, of course, we're talking about a fairly new pilot (the topic is
with regard to a check ride), and I don't think a pilot can go wrong
with performing the checks from memory, then following up with the
hard copy check list to make sure nothing was missed. At least, I've
been taught that the examiner would view this as a good use of the
check list.

Yes, I fully agree.

--Gary

On 8/8/2005 10:05, Gary Drescher wrote:

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 8/8/2005 09:14, Gary Drescher wrote:
If the procedure was a landing, it's hard to belatedly perform a missing
step afterwards. :-)

The check list is for the "before landing" tasks. [...]
Once you've performed this check list from memory, you can pull out the
hard copy and make sure nothing was missed.

At least, that was the intent of my comments.

Yup, I was just making a feeble attempt at humor.

Oops, sorry about that. One of my complaints about Usenet is people
that do exactly what I did ;-(

Plus, I didn't really see who you were ... had I been paying attention...
well, you know ;-)



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

Flying a 172M VFR for 28 years, I have degenerated to a one item
checklist (FUEL!) as I feel I can deal with any of the other things as
either normal routine or as they become obvious. Fuel! is the one
thing I don't ever want to deal with on a priority basis.

GUMPS is good but it also needs to have (cowl and wing) flaps added.

Checklists would seem much more important for more complicated aircraft
or different aircraft even of the same type.

What is "FUEL!"?

Jose
r.a.student stripped, as I don't follow it.
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
r.a.student stripped, as I don't follow it.

I wish you would stop doing that.

Assuming the original cross-post was valid (and it's true, it not always
is), the mere fact that YOU don't follow a particular newsgroup is a lousy
reason to take that newsgroup from the newsgroup line.

The whole point of cross-posting is to that the ENTIRE thread can be
followed by multiple newsgroup. When you take a newsgroup out just because
you're not reading the other newsgroup, you negate the whole point of
cross-posting. Doing so just because you don't read the other newsgroup is
silly.

If you object to cross-posting, either a specific instance or generally,
then say so. But if your objection is to posting to newsgroup you don't
read, that's just nonsense.

Ironically, in this particular instance, you weren't even contributing
anything. You were asking for a clarification. Which means you have
artificially limited the audience to whom your question was posed, reducing
the chances of you getting an answer. If "nrp" saw this thread in
r.a.student, he'll never see your question, and won't answer it. Duh.

Pete