![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 16, 12:12 am, Ramy wrote:
Yeah, but my point is, how can you make sure you will follow the checklist T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G. P-R-A-C-T-I-C-E. As Henry says: "Take the tow." As Pete says: "Take the CFIG." At least once a year. Practice your emergency procedures (no flap landings, no spoiler landings). What do you think the military pilots do most of the time? What do commercial pilots expect when they take their simulator rides (at least once a year, sometimes twice a year)? Make your own checklist. I've gotten in the habit of doing that for each airplane (and each glider) I fly. As a Flight Test Guy, this saves lives, saves money and makes the difference between success and failure. The sun is setting on these items, but how many diamonds would have been ACHIEVED if the checklist (the usually non-existent checklist) had included the following two items: 1.) Wind barograph. 2.) Load film in camera, wind camera. How many lives (and gliders) would have been saved if these had been on the checklist? A.) Positive Control Check - Elevator B.) Positive Control Check - Rudder C.) Positive Control Check - Aileron Left D.) Positive Control Check - Aileron Right E.) Positive Control Check - Spoiler Right F.) Positive Control Check - Spoiler Left Yup, I've been a dummy: took off once with the static ports still taped over. Knew what to do: turned it into a pattern tow and a practice "emergency" landing. Untaped the statics, did a (more thorough) complete walk-around (preflight), got in line and took the relight for a damn fine flight. And statics got added to the preflight checklist!!! BTW, that's not the only time I've been a dummy -- those that know me ... A checklist is no substitute for airmanship. RAS posting is no substitute for getting current AND competent in your machine. It seems that too many of us get one or two flights in at the beginning of the season, and then go striking out hunting diamonds (yeah, me too). We should spend more time locally, with or without the Constant Flight Interruptor aboard. We should practice more landings, short/ soft field with obstacle landings...simulated landing out landings. After you use a checklist for a while, you'll find that they're terrific security blankets, and help you relax more during the flight. Keep the mnemonics (USTALL, TWA, GUMP) as safety nets. When you forget your checklist, and feel brave enough to fly without it, make sure you touch and say every item within your reach (spoilers, release, flaps, gear, relief tube...). The pros fly with checklists. The FAA condones the discipline. Many accident investigation reports cite, as one of the causes, the crew's failure to follow the appropriate checklist. It's at least as important as your parachute. Hopefully, you'll use the checklist more often. -Pete #309 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 16 Dec, 08:44, 309 wrote:
Yup, I've been a dummy: took off once with the static ports still taped over. ... And statics got added to the preflight checklist!!! After you use a checklist for a while, you'll find that they're terrific security blankets, and help you relax more during the flight. Security blankets are not necessarily a Good Thing. After all, it seems you may have missed your taped over static ports because they weren't on your check list ... what's going to be next? Not that I'm knocking the whole idea, you understand - I have a nice laminated list of rigging and derigging stuff. The pros fly with checklists. The FAA condones the discipline. Many accident investigation reports cite, as one of the causes, the crew's failure to follow the appropriate checklist. The pros are flying vastly more complicated aircraft and have vastly more time available to read checklists. Ian |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian wrote:
The pros are flying vastly more complicated aircraft... True, though the pilot/aircraft interface gets simpler all the time--until you get to the programming part. ...and have vastly more time available to read checklists. False. Though we may have a crew to share the load, it takes more time to work with a crew. The time available to provide a solution is often inversely related to the size of the problem. In single-seat aircraft you are generally going very fast, have even more complexity, and often feel that you don't have enough hands to do all the things that need to be done in the time available, which can be so short as to seem virtually non-existent. That's why there are ejection seats--wonderful "zero/zero" rocket-powered seats. If the above sounds to some like an argument against reliance on checklists, in fact my position is that checklists must be first and foremost practical--short, sufficient, and sometimes memorized--but they should always be used. Checklists work, and AOA works. Though the use of each must be adapted to the ship, the mission, and the circumstances, I suspect those who avoid or deride either one do so for their own emotional reasons and not out of a real understanding of their value. Jack |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 16 Dec, 11:28, J a c k wrote:
Ian wrote: ...and have vastly more time available to read checklists. False. Though we may have a crew to share the load, it takes more time to work with a crew. The time available to provide a solution is often inversely related to the size of the problem. The pros flying commercial jets /do/ have more time to deal with check lists because (a) the person flying the aircraft doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the checklisting (b) they have autopilots and (c) they don't need to look out. I'm basing this on a few jump seat trips (in the Good Old Days), but I have never had time in a glider to take my hands off the controls, focus wholly on the inside of the cockpit and go through a seventeen point check list... Incidentally, you say that "checklists ... should alway be used". Do you have a checklist for joining thermals? For thermal centring? For stall recovery? For dolphin flying? Ian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian wrote:
Jack wrote: False. Though we may have a crew to share the load, it takes more time to work with a crew. The time available to provide a solution is often inversely related to the size of the problem. The pros flying commercial jets /do/ have more time to deal with check lists because (a) the person flying the aircraft doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the checklisting (b) they have autopilots and (c) they don't need to look out. Those are all very nice things to have--some of them are even true. Of course there are checklists, and then there are checklists--and many different kinds of problems to be encountered. We do in fact make an effort to slow things down and create more time to do checklists, both written and mental, when possible. The study of crew coordination, and use of all the crew's resources, has become a science--and a new respect for the art of cockpit resource management permeates the industry. It appears you believe the foregoing is somehow an argument against using checklists in other types of aircraft. I think it should, for those with open minds, describe the importance to professionals of defining the proper use of check lists and training oneself and others in using checklists appropriately. (a) The removal of the flying pilot from the checklist loop is not a smart idea, though he cannot give full attention to it. He must be aware of what is happening with regard to the problem-solving process and participate in it to an appropriate extent, without ever being distracted from aircraft control. Doing the checklist is the easy part. (b) The autopilots usually work--but not always. There was no checklist, as I remember it (retired now for five years), for loss of all autopilot function. What do you suppose we would do then--possibly refer to a mental "checklist" of things which must be approached in a different manner in order to insure a successful outcome? (c) There are times when less visual clearing is necessary than at other times. You may have seen a crew paying less attention to what's going on outside periodically during the high altitude cruise portion of a flight. That too is human nature, but there are very few times when it is appropriate to ignore what's happening outside for more than a few seconds. There are some quite infamous examples where that has been disastrously demonstrated. The best glider pilots I have flown with do use checklists appropriate to gliders and use them in a manner which enhances the safety and efficiency of glider operations. And I base my evaluation of their abilities on far more than their use of checklists, by the way--in case you perceive me as some sort of anal procedural-minded robot. I doubt that those I have flown with would agree with such a perception. Though it has been decades since I last flew a military fighter (the F-100) it is my understanding that military pilot training has adapted in similar fashion and parallels airline training with regard to use of checklists and resource management. These principles are not new however, only the system's acknowledgment that the scientific approach to resource management is superior to the old model is new (relative to the mindset of a half-century ago). When there is only one crew member, no autopilot, and very little that can possibly go wrong with the ship, what is different but the number of checklists and their length? Do the principles change? I think not. I'm basing this on a few jump seat trips (in the Good Old Days), but I have never had time in a glider to take my hands off the controls, focus wholly on the inside of the cockpit and go through a seventeen point check list. Of course, I don't have the advantage of a perspective on these matters gained from a few jump seat trips. I've spent far too many hours in jump-seats, though perhaps just the right amount of hours in right- and left- and only-seats. And it is possible I've encountered a seventeen-point checklist along the way, but I don't remember any. I do remember very well the efforts to shorten the checklists, as well as to reduce the number of items which must be committed to memory. That was, and is, a good thing. If you have never had occasion to remove your hands from the flight controls in a glider, perhaps you should try to relax more. The ship sometimes does better on its own, at least for me. Incidentally, you say that "checklists ... should alway be used". Do you have a checklist for joining thermals? For thermal centring? For stall recovery? For dolphin flying? I think one could answer, "Yes", to your question, but only in the most pedantic sense. You will, upon rereading, perhaps note that I did not say that there should be a checklist for every action--nor every consideration--that a pilot undertakes. I do have both mental and written checklists for certain phases of flight. The written ones are very few, and very short. The challenge is to use them, always, because it is my nature, as with most humans, to think in the moment that I don't need them. Flying a glider is, I'm sure you will agree, a very simple sort of flying. It can be deceptively so. One needs only to forget a single item to ruin ones day. If a checklist is defined for a given phase of your operation, then use it--or not, since we are unlikely ever to fly together, or even in the same area. If I was instructing and/or giving check-rides in gliders I would require the use of a written checklist for certain aspects of pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight operations. You would likely not be pleased to be in the other seat, but I can live with that. Jack |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 16 Dec, 19:19, J a c k wrote:
I think it should, for those with open minds, describe the importance to professionals of defining the proper use of check lists and training oneself and others in using checklists appropriately. We are in complete agreement, you know. I don't think either of us would substitute "indiscriminately" for "appropriately", would we? The best glider pilots I have flown with do use checklists appropriate to gliders and use them in a manner which enhances the safety and efficiency of glider operations. How would you define "best glider pilots" there? I have flown a few times with a world champion, and he did not ask for any more than the usual two BGA mnemonics. When there is only one crew member, no autopilot, and very little that can possibly go wrong with the ship, what is different but the number of checklists and their length? Do the principles change? I think not. That's perhaps a little evasive, since the number and length may change drastically in such circumstances. But yes, the principal of "use checklists when appropriate" holds good! I think one could answer, "Yes", to your question, but only in the most pedantic sense. You will, upon rereading, perhaps note that I did not say that there should be a checklist for every action--nor every consideration--that a pilot undertakes. We agree there as well. If a checklist is defined for a given phase of your operation, then use it--or not, since we are unlikely ever to fly together, or even in the same area. If I was instructing and/or giving check-rides in gliders I would require the use of a written checklist for certain aspects of pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight operations. You would likely not be pleased to be in the other seat, but I can live with that. I'm a bit worried by this "if there is a checklist, use it" approach. Now that I've told you about the NARSTI checklist for winch cable breaks, will you always use it? Please don't get me wrong. I'm not agin' the things - but I am agin' unquestioning acceptance of anything while flying. Except spin recovery! Ian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian wrote:
How would you define "best glider pilots" there? They were better than the other glider pilots I've flown with. I have flown a few times with a world champion, and he did not ask for any more than the usual two BGA mnemonics. Sounds appropriate to me. I don't advocate papering the cockpit with checklists. I'm a bit worried by this "if there is a checklist, use it" approach. Now that I've told you about the NARSTI checklist for winch cable breaks, will you always use it? Undoubtedly not. I've not seen a cable launch and don't expect to see one. I'd certainly use the checklist recommended by my CFI, until I developed my own. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not agin' the things - but I am agin' unquestioning acceptance of anything while flying. Except spin recovery! Unquestioning acceptance not spoken here. Jack |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 16, 1:39 am, Ian wrote:
Security blankets are not necessarily a Good Thing. After all, it seems you may have missed your taped over static ports because they weren't on your check list ... what's going to be next? Not that I'm knocking the whole idea, you understand - I have a nice laminated list of rigging and derigging stuff. Okay, Ian, I'll fess up: that static port episode was before I religiously used checklists in anything that weighed less than 4,000 pounds. It became one of those pivotal (thankfully non-fatal and inexpensive) events that convinced me that it doesn't matter how simple the aircraft is. As Max Stanley is quoted: "The Piper Cub is the safest aircraft in the world -- it can just barely kill you." Religious use of a checklist doesn't necessarily mean plastering the sides of your cockpit, and spending more time looking at the paper than the scenery: Reviewing a checklist prior to the flight (even the night before) can re-etch the memory of how to do it right, and quickly. And frequently, you go through the motions (using cranial or muscle memory) and then REVIEW the checklist -- and sometimes catch the item that was forgotten. P.S.: The mere act of WRITING a checklist helps you truly understand the aircraft systems (simple or not), the proper operating procedures (and perhaps a better "flow" of the steps than the manufacturer originally suggested). The benefit of this remains -- although less so -- even if you never use the list again. Look at pilots & instructors who fly multiple types of aircraft: They use checklists (sometimes very short ones that are referred to as "cheat sheets") so they refresh their mind that this aircraft has a best L/D speed of y and a min sink speed of x (or for power, Vx, Vy, Vglide, VLE, VLO, Vfe, Vmc, Va, Vne, Vno). The "best" instructors share their cheat sheets with their students, but implore (or force) their students to fabricate their own. P.P.S.: Jack is right: Big Iron Crews do NOT necessarily have more time. Especially in Flight Test, I have witnessed where pre-briefing a checklist made the difference between incident (safe return) and disaster. During most normal operations they do have more time -- in part thanks to orderly and well arranged checklists! P.P.P.S: Yes, there's a checklist for thermalling: Somebody's already in thermal: follow his direction of turn. Nobody else? Try my luck to the left... Last note: I haven't seen it quite so much with the major airlines (except for basic aviation skills), but in the military there are Emergency Procedures and there are BOLD FACE EMERGENCY PROCEDURES: All pilots flying a given type are required to memorize Bold Face procedures! Okay, final note: If you look in all of the manuals, there is never any additional procedures or writing after the word EJECT. -Pete #309 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 17 Dec, 09:04, 309 wrote:
P.S.: The mere act of WRITING a checklist helps you truly understand the aircraft systems (simple or not), the proper operating procedures (and perhaps a better "flow" of the steps than the manufacturer originally suggested). I wrote my rigging and derigging instructions on the basis that someone someday might have to take my glider apart while I was elsewhere (in hospital? under arrest? dead?). It was quite instructive to commit to writing all the wrinkles I had developed myself. The benefit of this remains -- although less so -- even if you never use the list again. Look at pilots & instructors who fly multiple types of aircraft: They use checklists (sometimes very short ones that are referred to as "cheat sheets") so they refresh their mind that this aircraft has a best L/D speed of y and a min sink speed of x (or for power, Vx, Vy, Vglide, VLE, VLO, Vfe, Vmc, Va, Vne, Vno). I had the pleasure of working with Anne Welch some years ago. When she was in the Air Transport Auxiliary during the Second Big Unpleasantness she wrote many of the single sheet briefing notes designed to let a (good) pilot do a basic delivery flight in a new type safely. They make fascinating reading - who operating manuals stripped to the absolute minimum. Undercarriage up with three pulls on this lever, down with five pumps on that. Take off vacuum and rpm so, cruise so, landing so. All BGA gliders have a placard giving Vne, Vwinch, Vaerotow and Vroughair, and I make it my policy /always/ to reread that before / every/ launch. Good grief, I'm a checklist user! Ian |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pete, what does the mnenomic TWA stand for?
-John On Dec 16, 3:44 am, 309 wrote: Keep the mnemonics (USTALL, TWA, GUMP) as safety nets. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USA / The Soaring Safety Foundation (SSF) Safety Seminars 2008 | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | November 8th 07 11:15 PM |
The Soaring Safety Foundation (SSF) Safety Seminars Hit The Road in the USA | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | September 11th 06 03:48 AM |
Read and Post for Air Safety | ManfromZetar | Piloting | 2 | July 30th 05 04:48 PM |
Off topic, Gore and the internet (don't read if not interested) | Corky Scott | Home Built | 42 | June 18th 05 04:06 AM |
Toronto Pilots own web board address (don't read unless interested) | FOOTANDMOUTH | Piloting | 0 | July 23rd 03 01:10 AM |