Part 91 Checklists

[minitour]

...put the throttle full forward...

haha...funny this should come up...I've got a few students that neglect this part of the checklist. My favorite line has become, "Are we going to use full power or do you want to use all 8,000' today?".

-mini

 

[mattpilot]

haha...funny this should come up...I've got a few students that neglect this part of the checklist. My favorite line has become, "Are we going to use full power or do you want to use all 8,000' today?".

-mini

You could respond by telling them that you are only planning on using 77% power.

If they are confused you should tell them to study the POH more

 

[minitour]

Haha I'll keep that one on the tip of my tongue...

maybe they just don't wanna overtorque the mighty 172's super-powerful O-320...

-mini

 

[100LL... Again!]

The problem with most GA checklists is that they are more of a "How to fly the 172 for Dummies" than they are a true checklist.

One of our instructors once made a light twin checklist longer than flighsafety's King Air checklist. It was unbearable.

Checklists need to contain items that will kill you or damage the aircraft, and anything else that improves operational efficiency, without cluttering the above two items.

If you put too many items on a checklist, people will tend to miss the important ones or get halfway done, drop the gear and forget to finish the rest.

Sometimes the culprit is a nerdy CFI who is in LOVE with the idea of airline-style operations and makes a monster checklist that ends up generating .4 of taxi time minimum.

NEVER put airmanship items on a checklist. For example: Brakes - apply.
or: When landing is assured - power to idle.

If you need a checklists to tell you that, you don't need a checklist, you need dual.

 

[mattpilot]

Sometimes the culprit is a nerdy CFI who is in LOVE with the idea of airline-style operations and makes a monster checklist that ends up generating .4 of taxi time minimum.

HA! Reminds me of my first flight in a multi (duchess). We got .5(!) runup time just because the freakin checklist was so long. What added to the problem was that it was dark and the checklist was very cluttered. Also, the instructor was very adamant that every single equipment on board should be thouroughly checked (its a duchess, half the equipment DOESN'T work ) I guess i don't have to point out that i didn't return for a second flight.

 

[Lead Sled]

The problem with most GA checklists is that they are more of a "How to fly the 172 for Dummies" than they are a true checklist.

One of our instructors once made a light twin checklist longer than flighsafety's King Air checklist. It was unbearable.

Checklists need to contain items that will kill you or damage the aircraft, and anything else that improves operational efficiency, without cluttering the above two items.

If you put too many items on a checklist, people will tend to miss the important ones or get halfway done, drop the gear and forget to finish the rest.

Sometimes the culprit is a nerdy CFI who is in LOVE with the idea of airline-style operations and makes a monster checklist that ends up generating .4 of taxi time minimum.

NEVER put airmanship items on a checklist. For example: Brakes - apply.
or: When landing is assured - power to idle.

If you need a checklists to tell you that, you don't need a checklist, you need dual.

Good advice.

A well done checklist will be concise. If you happen to be flying most SE trainers, it's really hard to see where you'd really need anything beyond "CIGAR" or any of it's variations. "GUMPS" adequately handles most landing checklists. Anything more complex that that probably accomplishes little and perhaps even is a detriment to safety. For example, running a long involved pre-landing checklist in an airplane where it isn't justified involves a lot of "heads down" time when you really should be looking outside.

In our operation, we use flows to perform the required checks and checklists to back up the flows. In other words, our check lists are not "To Do Lists", but rather backups to our various flows.

'Sled

 

[Gutenberg]

On copying the POH checklists. They are not always the best. For instance:

BE-58 POH recommends not cracking the boots until 1/2 to 3/4" of ice is on the surfaces. Bridging is like global warming- no proof, and the FEDs agree.

CE-172 (new): don't lean below 3000' (pulease), the starting procedure and hot start are both horrible, starting with the alternator on

F-33: again the hot start and vapor purge procedures are not the ones to follow if you want to hot start your continental and avoid embarassment on the ramp

With a little care, you can improve on the POH, and save the lives of you battery, injector nozzles, spark plugs, etc.

If you operate smartly and carefully, I see no problem in going against the POH for these and similar items.

 

[ManChild]

BE-58 POH recommends not cracking the boots until 1/2 to 3/4" of ice is on the surfaces. Bridging is like global warming- no proof, and the FEDs agree.

If the manufacturer says wait, and the FAA says blow them, then which is legal? Asked at Flight Safety and they didn't have an answer.

 

[Gutenberg]

There is an advisory circular that explicitly talks about studies on bridging and pneumatic de-ice boots and it recommends to crack em if you got em. My POI at the Great Lakes FSDO asked me about it on my initial PIC ride and I gave him the "bridging is a myth" answer, went over well with him.


Sorry for not linking to the AC, but I'm lazy.

 

[AlabamaMan!!]

There is an advisory circular that explicitly talks about studies on bridging and pneumatic de-ice boots and it recommends to crack em if you got em. My POI at the Great Lakes FSDO asked me about it on my initial PIC ride and I gave him the "bridging is a myth" answer, went over well with him.


Sorry for not linking to the AC, but I'm lazy.

Hell yes you are............did they fix the baron yet?

How bout some Golden Tee tonight, biatch?

 

[phantomdriver]

mattpilot it sound like you were at airman flight school.

 

[mattpilot]

mattpilot it sound like you were at airman flight school.

nope

 

[minitour]

mattpilot it sound like you were at airman flight school.

haha yeah that does kinda describe their Duchess, don't it?

 

[Dumbledore]

In cases where the aircraft is a large transport category aircraft the following regulations are of note.

91.503 (a)(2) compels the presence of a checklist as follows:

(a) The pilot in command of an airplane shall ensure that the following flying equipment and aeronautical charts and data, in current and appropriate form, are accessible for each flight at the pilot station of the airplane:

(2) A cockpit checklist containing the procedures required by paragraph (b) of this section.

91.503(b) compels certain contents of that checklist as follows:

(b) Each cockpit checklist must contain the following procedures and shall be used by the flight crewmembers when operating the airplane:

(1) Before starting engines.

(2) Before takeoff.

(3) Cruise.

(4) Before landing.

(5) After landing.

(6) Stopping engines.

(7) Emergencies.

91.605(b) compels compliance with the flight manual as follows:

(b) No person may operate a turbine-engine-powered transport category airplane certificated after September 30, 1958, contrary to the Airplane Flight Manual …

This is generally regarded to mean that at a minimum, the procedures contained in the AFM must be included in any checklist used to comply with 91.503(a)(2). Doing otherwise could be construed as operating contrary to the AFM.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Doing otherwise could be construed as operating contrary to the AFM.

This last part is also true with all aircraft. 91.503 checklist requirements aside, although we tend to think of "limitations" in a different way, there is NTSB case law finding a violation of 91.9(a) for failure to complete a checklist item.

The issues are slightly different in that 91.503 deals with following a checklist which isn't =technically= required in light aircraft, but the practical end result of a missed item is the same.