![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Seim wrote:
I recently read the accident report of the ASW20 crash (fatal) at Williams, CA. Per the check list, they did a positive control check of the elevator by having the assistant (co-owner) hold the elevator while the pilot applied force on the stick. Resistance was felt, check list passed. Only problem was the elevator was not hooked up and what the pilot felt was the push rod hitting the bottom of the elevator. Now, if the guy just LOOKED at the connection it would have been obvious that it was not hooked up (it is in plain site). Following a list may give you tunnel vision. A DC-9 was landed gear up by two experienced pilots following a check list (they missed one step). They were so certain that they had done everything right that they ignored the lack of the sound and thump of the gear lowering (common sense, again). I took my CFIG checkride with the FAA. On it, I told him "there is no PCC in the schweizer manual for any checklist. The checklist requires inspection during preflight of the connections. I find the (over)use of the PCC distracts the pilot from the more important action: checking the connection itself." He nodded, and we moved on to other things. My understanding of contests is that an "assisted PCC" is required by many CDs. I wonder if an "assisted connection inspection" wouldn't be a better, higher, priority... As far as the DC-9, I'd guess this is another example of information which is lost in the noise. I remember asking a car dealer about his warranty. He had a super long list of covered items. He said just about everything was covered. I asked him to make a nice short list of what WASN'T covered. He couldn't, and we parted. Useful information is prioritized. When I write professionally, I do a 200 word abstract, then a 1000 word introduction/summary, then a 5000 word detail. And yes, the 200 word abstract is first. I'd like to see all writing (including the checklists) follow this idea. A few important points at the front, the nit details at the back. -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
SR22 Spin Recovery | gwengler | Piloting | 9 | September 24th 04 07:31 AM |
Spin Training | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 6 | February 16th 04 04:49 PM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |