Interested in soaring safety? Read this

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

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

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

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

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

On Dec 17, 2:57 am, J a c k wrote:
Ian wrote:
How would you define "best glider pilots" there?

They were better than the other glider pilots I've flown with.
snip

Defining 'best' as 'better' is not very helpful IMHO. What exactly
made you feel he is better than the other people you've flown with? I
mean without using terms like 'best', 'better' and so on...

Cats wrote:

On Dec 17, 2:57 am, J a c k wrote:

Ian wrote:

How would you define "best glider pilots" there?

They were better than the other glider pilots I've flown with.

Defining 'best' as 'better' is not very helpful IMHO. What exactly
made you feel he is better than the other people you've flown with? I
mean without using terms like 'best', 'better' and so on...


Oh no you don't, my friend. If you really want to know what it's
supposed to look like, then go out and spend fifty years figuring it out
for yourself. You may be willing to take the time to read and absorb a
distillation of all that, but I haven't the time to write it, nor can
you afford my rates.

Besides, it's already been done so much better by Bach, Berent, Buck,
Boyne, Collins, Fowler, Gann, Imelson, Kern, Kershner, Langewiesche,
Plourde, Saint-Exupery, Shilling, Taylor, Webb, Yeager, and a hundred
more. It doesn't come easy, cheap, or fast, but those fellows can point
you in the right direction, and you'll often be entertained enough along
the way to want to stick with it.


Jack