Checkride Checklist Question

"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

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 8/8/2005 10:05, Gary Drescher wrote:
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 ;-)

Heh, don't worry, Usenet is designed to promote misunderstandings. :-)

--Gary

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

I wish you would stop doing that [sometimes stripping groups I don't follow].

I do that selectively. Sometimes it makes no sense to post to a group I
don't follow (such as asking a question), and sometimes it does makes
sense (such as to give information that was asked). In either case I
think it's courtious to say what I'm doing - if I make a comment in a
group I don't follow, I let them know that I won't receive followups
from that group (some newsreaders do not permit replies to more than one
group, some don't flag crossposts, some turn them into multple posts,
and it can otherwise seem like a drive-by posting when it isn't).

An ENTIRE thread doesn't always =remain= valid in multple groups due to
thread drift or other reasons.

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.

That is exactly the reason for stripping it. If I didn't strip it,
somebody might see the post in r.a.s and answer it there, and I won't
see the answer (at least if he posts from a lame newsreader). Now
-that- would be silly.

Sometimes I keep the group and advise I don't read it, sometimes I strip
it and advise I don't read it.

Jose
--
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
. ..
I do that selectively. Sometimes it makes no sense to post to a group I
don't follow (such as asking a question)

It seems to me you may not understand how cross-posting works.

[...]
That is exactly the reason for stripping it. If I didn't strip it,
somebody might see the post in r.a.s and answer it there, and I won't see
the answer (at least if he posts from a lame newsreader). Now -that-
would be silly.

That's an absurd hypothesis. The only way it would happen is if the person
*answering* the question did what you are doing now.

Cross-posting is bidirectional. As long as you leave the newsgroup on the
Newsgroup: field, a single post appears in both newsgroup. Someone reading
your question in r.a.student, as long as they just do a normal default
reply, you will see their answer here, in r.a.piloting, even if they don't
personally read this newsgroup.

In other words, the only time the hypothetical situation you propose occurs
is when someone does the exact same thing you're doing now. Fortunately,
very few people do. I'd wager, in fact, that you may be the only regular
participant in either newsgroup to be engaging in this practice.

Your justification is circular. The only way it would make sense is to
assume someone doing what you're doing. Without that kind of uncooperative
behavior, there's no reason to do what you're doing.

Pete