Scudrunners

Why is it this discussion reminds me of my flying club days when I'd walk in on some of the old timers reminiscing about the "good ol' days" when there were no rules about going into IMC or flying too low, etc - you know, the same "good ol' days" when people crashed airplanes at a fairly regular rate (you should see my late uncle's logbook from the early 50s where every second page mentioned a crash of a friend).  While I won't entirely discount some simple actions in simple aircraft may not require checklists, I think it's a dangerous attitude to discount the safety of something just because TC mandates it.

I'm sorry you look on my comments as coming from an old timer reminiscing about the good old days when we smashed up airplanes at a high rate HiFlyChick.

Do you have any experience from those days you are describing?

I have never ever said one should not use check lists, I am saying you should not rely on them by using them like one of Pavlov's dogs as their main source of situational awareness of how the aircraft is set up for the segment of the flight you are about to enter.
[quote]
I think it's a dangerous attitude to discount the safety of something just because TC mandates it.[/quote]

Once again you have missed what I am saying, what I said was when we were not compelled to have a PPC on every airplane we flew just as safely or safer by demonstrating to the company chief pilot we could....in other words we as chief pilots determined if the pilot we were giving a machine to was capable.

As to regulations and regulators there is no doubt they are part of the structure under which we work and as such they are necessary, but blind adherence to their dictates without using your own common sense does not make for safety.

By the way I have worked for TC and for the regulator under JAA in Europe as a consultant in the structure of new rules which I would suggest gives me some leeway in commenting on the subject.

Oh and I worked in the test facility as a pilot for Airbus Industries in Toulouse France which I would suggest means I am not stuck all that far in the past.

Here is the start of my comments on this subject.

[quote]
There are a lot of pilots who advises others to follow the rules and regulations and SOP's when flying to ensure they are flying safely.

How do you choose who's rules, regulations , SOP's will ensure maximum safety?
[/quote]

The question has merit because there are more rules and regulations and SOP's than any mind can comprehend.

Remember Canada and TC are only one small segment of aviation.

I may as well keep defending my comments seeing as I started to.

[quote]
old timers reminiscing about the "good ol' days" when there were no rules about going into IMC or flying too low, etc -[/quote]

I started flying IFR when the airways were defined by the Radio Range airway system and ended my career with my last IFR flight in a B767300 ER in Europe, during all that time we had very well defined rules about how we were to fly IFR, so I guess the time you are referring to was before that.

By the way to get an IFR rating in those days we had to demonstrate we could send and receive Morse Code.

[quote]
you know, the same "good ol' days" when people crashed airplanes at a fairly regular rate[/quote]

Sorry, once again I have no experience in that era as I never crashed an airplane or helicopter, but I sure hear a lot about it mostly from people that sit around in flying clubs......
[color=red]


PLEASE NOTE[/color]

HiFlyChick.

Do not take this as a personal attack on you or your comments, it is meant to explain my position and the message I was attempting to get across.

Can we still be friends?  ;D
[color=blue]
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.[/color]

[quote author=HiFlyChick link=topic=131.msg302#msg302 date=1432684204]discount the safety of something just because TC mandates it.
[/quote] I didn't read that in this discussion 

Chuck did refer to TC making the operation of aircraft much more clusterfucked in some cases but I think it is naive to think that everything that the authorities mandate is in the best interest of aviation and therefor should be taken as an eleventh commandment. The problem lies when you don't follow their rules and something goes wrong, even if unrelated, and it's gotcha time...

I would be very interested to know how the discussions would go if say Seair for instance, approached TC and said that they thought that their 208 amphib drivers should follow flow patterns only and leave checklists for emergencies and troubleshooting.

Busy airspace, marginal VFR, low level, single pilot. With my wife and kid on board, this scenario makes me wanting to have the pilot's eyes outside every second of the flight. There is one [i]critical[/i] thing to remember in this scenario and that is [u]don't land on the water with the gear down[/u], so yes, it is a "simple" airplane but operating in some tough conditions.

I personally can't comment on other aircraft/scenarios but the point is that the practicality and the legality of checklists are two different ideas.  Authorities like to make standards in the name of safety and to CYA to some extent, but would they accept responsibility if a new Seair guy plowed into the side of a hill in shit weather and killed 10 people because he was dicking around inside looking at a piece of cardboard, worried that he is in breach of TC's rules?

Thank you Cloudrunner, why can't some pilots see such an obvious issue in the simple context it is.

When any activity is over regulated and as in the case of flying airplanes over work loaded there will be accidents caused by to much being done in to short a time.

So we now have three of us on the same wave length, you, the Colonel and me.

Maybe others will see the logic of our position?

Well, gentlemen, since you three are in agreement, allow me to elucidate on my previous comments....

Whether it was your intention or not, comments that combine TC bashing with statements about how (let's see, now, where was it...)
"I don't use checklists in any of the many different types that I fly..." imply that (1) you fly a whole lot of different airplanes, (2) more than most people fly, and (3) I must therefore be either a mental incompetent or a spineless jellyfish to have to use a checklist.

The reason I made the statement about the old timers at the flying club is that while the topic differs, the tone of disdain seems eerily familiar.  That's the same tone that advocates doing things that go against the general practice of the industry and (here's where I get really concerned) possibly influencing young inexperienced pilots to do similar based on, ...what...?  Intimidation by age and/or experience...?

Let's see...
"I don't use a checklist to go to the bathroom, get dressed in the morning, drive a car, ride a motorcycle, or fly an airplane..."

I don't use a checklist for any of the first 4 either, but given that I've never heard of injury or death resulting from either of the first 2, and other than shifting and braking you're not exactly changing the configuration of the vehicle for the next 2, it sounds like an apples-to-oranges comparison to me.  I've never had to worry about not putting the gear down on my motorcycle, or unporting a tank and losing an engine because I forgot to switch to the full tanks before the turn to final.

Let me clarify one thing - I am in agreement that TC has gone overboard with some of the requirements for checklists, and no, Cloudrunner, I am not naïve enough to think that because it's mandated by TC (i.e. legal) that it's necessarily safe.  But some of the statements in previous posts came pretty close to sounding like anyone who uses a checklist is a brainwashed-by-TC-idiot.

Chuck - I also agree that some of the current PPC requirements are onerous, however, I see no way to improve them, because leaving them strictly to the discretion of the Chief Pilot without any sort of guidelines is leaving too much room for individual interpretation.  It'd be great if all Chief Pilots were diligent and safe guys, but I fear they are not.

In looking back over your posts, Chuck, I see you said:
"I have never ever said one should not use check lists, I am saying you should not rely on them by using them like one of Pavlov's dogs as their main source of situational awareness of how the aircraft is set up for the segment of the flight you are about to enter."
I agree with that, but they do provide a good back-up to a somewhat erratic memory (and in fact I think it was the Colonel that said that he didn't use checklists).  For the record - I don't tend to pay attention to any one poster, but respond to multiple statements in the same post.

Regarding the "good old days", I have been in aviation for several decades (never flying the heavy metal), but have also had my share of mistakes which I was fortunate enough to get away with, and seeing and hopefully learning from others' mistakes (some of which claimed the lives of those who were not so lucky that day).

Don't know if I've addressed all questions, comments or general annoyance aimed my way, but nuff said for now....

Hi again HiFlyChick.  :)

I do not find you annoying at all, I am only expressing my personal thoughts about flying.

Check lists are exactly that, a written list used to confirm you have not missed something and they have their place in the operation of aircraft.....however for most configuration I use flow and memory checks when flying.

For me it has worked and so far I have yet to wreck one.


[quote]Chuck - I also agree that some of the current PPC requirements are onerous, however, I see no way to improve them, because leaving them strictly to the discretion of the Chief Pilot without any sort of guidelines is leaving too much room for individual interpretation.  It'd be great if all Chief Pilots were diligent and safe guys, but I fear they are not.[/quote]

There is no completely foolproof way to make every check out perfect, however from my experience the quality of determining the skills of a given pilot on a given airplane by the. Chief pilot was as effective as the PPC concept dictated by T.C.

Bear in mind I left Canada in 1995 to fly off shore and never ever flew commercially in Canada again so my  familiarity with the Canadian way of doing things is way out of date.

The bottom line is using a good decision making process and thinking and planning ahead of where your aircraft is at the moment will sure help you fly safely.

Oh, another thing flying the heavy iron is a whole different world than flying the small stuff..and about as exciting as watching paint dry.

[quote]"I don't use checklists in any of the many different types that I fly..."[/quote]

That's me.  I am different from you.  I hope
that does not make you angry and upset.  I
am not angry and upset that you are different
from me.

[quote](1) you fly a whole lot of different airplanes[/quote]

Ummmm .....

All models of Maule
All models of Pitts
C421
L39
L29
PT-22 Ryan
PT-19 "Cornell"
450hp R-985 Stearman
clip-wing geared 700hp Harvard
DR-109
Twin Bonanza
Beech 18
All models of RV homebuilts
Lots of other stuff I have forgotten

Often on the same day.  Last night I was
test-flying a wankel (car) engine-powered
homebuilt ... with no checklist.

[quote](2) more than most people fly[/quote]

You tell me.  I can safely say it is more than
anyone else in Ontario flies, than I know of.
Not sure what province you are in.

[quote](3) I must therefore be either a mental incompetent or a spineless jellyfish to have to use a checklist.[/quote]

Now your extrapolation has gone off the rails.

I can't tell you to wear tighty whitey underwear
or boxers.  I can't tell you what brand of headset
to wear.  I don't know if you like tomato sauce
with your pasta or not.

All I can tell you is what I do.  And I sure as hell
don't have my head down on downwind reading
a long checklist, and I sure as hell don't have my
head down on a motorcycle riding into an intersection
because it would be suicidal for me to do so, and
with all due respect to your checklist religion,
perhaps you could develop a little tolerance for
people different than yourself.

This is a normal flight for me.  I don't know if
it's normal for you or not:



Note the complete lack of checklist use, for
the performance of the maneuvers.

40 years of flying some pretty weird stuff, and
no accidents.  The Convergence of the Central
Limit theorem tells us that this is no coincidence.

It is normal for me to fly a biplane across the
Gulf of Mexico with a tank in the front seat,
and then take the canopy off and put a meat
bomb in the front seat, and open a Central
American airshow by rolling inverted and
dropping the meat bomb out in formation
with two other biplanes doing the same
thing.

[img][/img]

No checklists used there, either.  They
would simply blow away.

I took this picture with my cellphone, holding
it over my head, looking forward:

[img][/img]

Across the Gulf of Mexico again, with a complex
ferry tank system.  Cuba on the right, a cold
front approaching from the east bubbling the
Cu up.  No checklist used.  Somehow I made
it, without any assistance from the checklist
religion.

I am not a fan of religion.

[quote author=HiFlyChick link=topic=131.msg339#msg339 date=1432864080]some of the statements in previous posts came pretty close to sounding like anyone who uses a checklist is a brainwashed-by-TC-idiot.
[/quote] Again, I'll have to say I disagree, but that is not particularly important.

I do however understand your perspective, I think. Perhaps part of it stems from a concern that impressionable younger pilots identify with what we are saying and decide that it is ok "not to use a checklist" and start to go rogue in terms of what is taught in flying school. Again, I can't speak for other segments of the industry, but if he/she winds up flying single pilot, VFR on floats, I would consider that a good thing.

I personally believe that people have the mistaken idea that a checklist is a failsafe and it is not by any means IMO.

If you look at the physical process of using one as a single pilot, it involves a card or booklet in your hand which you are referring to. Without autopilot engaged, you need to be flying, reading, looking to confirm the item and presumably touch it, look back to your checklist, look to the next confirmation, look outside for traffic, back to the checklist, back to the item, look outside and so on etc.

My main problems with this are that:
Float pilots can quite often be a lot closer to the ground/water and losing 3-500 feet can happen quite quickly without noticing it, certainly in the timespan of checking a few items.
Flying VFR, you are responsible for your own traffic separation most of the time, how can people justify the only pilot on board taking his/her eyes off of what you are approaching (potential traffic)
And what about when you get interrupted by a radio call that makes you change freq's and use one hand on the yoke and the other to adjust the radio, how do you maintain your place on the checklist? You can't with any certainty. Now what? Try to remember where you were on the list? Start over and spend yet more time with the head inside?

Flow patterns work as long as they are taught and engrained properly. Checklists have huge potential pitfalls in my mind for single pilot, VFR flying.

Right.  For me - and I can't speak for anyone
else - checklists fail a basic cost/benefit analysis.

They distract a pilot from safely operating the
aircraft often at crucial times and obfuscate
what is critically important.

Food for thought:  here is a WWII checklist for
a very complicated four-engine bomber:

[img][/img]

It is shorter and simpler than the checklist
for a 172 at an FTU.

The problem is that checklists are always
abused into "do lists" that include stuff like
"adjust your seat" and "close your flight
plan" and "do your zipper up" which obscures
important stuff like "gear down".

All of the gear-up incidents that I read about
were all flown by pilots that use checklists.

I don't use checklists, and I have never landed
gear up.

Speaking of time and checking your configuration for what you are about to do.

When I was doing PBY type ratings I had the student do three minute touch and goes for the water portion of the training and they did at least ten one after the other.

The circuit was done with the downwind portion flown at three hundred feet.

When doing consecutive circuits every three minutes with two turns below three hundred feet in an airplane with a wing span of one hundred and four feet reading a check list would really add to the danger factor.