Private Pilot

[Kream926]

If i remember correctly I Landed the first time. wasnt pretty i think it was more like 3 landings. but in all cases why not get them "shadow" the controlls while you do it. Beat it into their heads early. I was yaught and did GUMPS since day one in a fifty-duece and i will never forgot to do so in the RG or wont in later bigger airplanes.


just my 2 cents

-kream

 

[bobbysamd]

GUMPS aside

I was yaught and did GUMPS since day one in a fifty-duece and i will never forgot to do so in the RG or wont in later bigger airplanes.

(emphasis added)

. . . . which is precisely the reason to teach GUMPS early in training.

Law of Primacy. Good for you!!

 

[midlifeflyer]

(emphasis added)

. . . . which is precisely the reason to teach GUMPS early in training.

You mean so that they can learn early in training that "undercarriage" is just a word and that forgetting to check it means absolutely nothing?

 

[bobbysamd]

Gumps

You mean so that they can learn early in training that "undercarriage" is just a word and that forgetting to check it means absolutely nothing?

It does not mean "absolutely nothing." The idea is to get them not to forget checking it. It is preparation for flying advanced airplanes. It gives them the primacy of checking the gear so that the habit is formed when they transition into complex airplanes, so that checking "gear down" is second nature and they do not land gear-up at that time.

Here, again,

I was [t]aught and did GUMPS since day one in a fifty-duece and i will never forgot to do so in the RG or wont in later bigger airplanes.

(emphasis added)

Also, starting students on flows early will help them later.

 

[Lead Sled]

I've got mixed emotions when it comes to stuff like that. One one hand, it starts them thinking about flying the larger birds. The drawback in my mind is that you might also be setting them up for problem down the road when they actually transition into retracts.

As I see it, the problem arises when you have something on a checklist that you routinely and habitually "blow" past, such as having an item like "UNDERCARRAGE - DOWN" on a fixed gear plane. Do you really want a student to get used to blowing past something that's obviously in the correct position in a simple airplane and accidentally blow by it later when they're flying solo in a retract. It has happened many times. Nearly 100% of the pilots involved in gearup accidents swear that the put the gear down. I'm sure they probably did say "Gear - Down" and blew through it without checking for the appropriate lights and other indications - a habit that was reinforced by using an inappropriate checklist for 100s of hours in "simple" airplaneS. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe that you are always better off using an appropriate checklist.

I believe the better solution would be to teach checklist usage and discipline. That way it really doesn't matter what aircraft you're flying - you'll be using the appropriate checklist in the appropriate manner.

'Sled

 

[Kream926]

i was too in the early days. i was naive back then and asked why checkit, its a fixed gear it will always be there. my instructors response was just in case it fell off during flight. same goes in the runup area when checking for fuel selector on. i know it's on the darn thing is running. complaisancy(sp?). like bobby said, flows early = good later on.

 

[midlifeflyer]

As I see it, the problem arises when you have something on a checklist that you routinely and habitually "blow" past, such as having an item like "UNDERCARRAGE - DOWN" on a fixed gear plane. Do you really want a student to get used to blowing past something that's obviously in the correct position in a simple airplane and accidentally blow by it later when they're flying solo in a retract. It has happened many times. Nearly 100% of the pilots involved in gearup accidents swear that the put the gear down. I'm sure they probably did say "Gear - Down" and blew through it without checking for the appropriate lights and other indications - a habit that was reinforced by using an inappropriate checklist for 100s of hours in "simple" airplaneS. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe that you are always better off using an appropriate checklist.

I agree. There's probably no way to do a reliable statistical survey, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a high correlation between gear up accidents and learning GUMPS as a student pilot in a fixed gear airplane for exactly that reason.

It's also part of my general objection to many mnemonics - the mnemonic becomes more important than the information it represents. There's about as much reason to check "Gear -- down and welded" as there is to check "rudders -- locked" or "spoilers -- deployed" in a 152. Unless, of course, you ascribe some mystical power to the GUMPS itself.

 

[bobbysamd]

Student pilot GUMPS

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a high correlation between gear up accidents and learning GUMPS as a student pilot in a fixed gear airplane . . . .

I doubt it, simply from the standpoint that not that many instructors teach GUMPS to fixed-gear students because they don't see the need.

Your statistics would probably show that gear-up accidents occur primarily to distracted, high-workload pilots who did not have the GUMPS check hammered into them during complex/high-performance training and still had their fixed-gear primacy. Compare with MAPD, where zero-time students are taught ab initio in Bonanzas and know nothing other than to check gear and props several times in the pattern. No gear-up accidents that I can recall.

 

[Lead Sled]

Your statistics would probably show that gear-up accidents occur primarily to distracted, high-workload pilots who did not have the GUMPS checked hammered into them during complex/high-performance training and still had their fixed-gear primacy...where zero-time students are taught ab initio in Bonanzas and know nothing other than to check gear and props several times in the pattern. No gear-up accidents that I can recall.

I agree with you here. If you're learning in a Bonanza then GUMPS is very applicable. My issue is non-applicable checklist items. You seem to like the law of primacy - wouldn't it apply to habitually blowing past non-applicable items as well? I think so. IMHO, the best way to handle this is as I said earlier - teach proper checklist usage and discipline.

'Sled

 

[bobbysamd]

Primacy

You seem to like the law of primacy - wouldn't it apply to habitually blowing past non-applicable items as well? I think so. IMHO, the best way to handle this is as I said earlier - teach proper checklist usage and discipline.

Indeed, I like the Law of Primacy. Learn it right the first time. Establish a good foundation and good habits the first time. It is easier to learn it right the first time than to unlearn bad learning and relearn good learning.

The idea is not to blow past non-applicable items. You teach the students to call them out (verbalized) and recognize them. Obviously, blowing past them does not establish the proper habit pattern. The idea, again, is to establish the notion that gear and props will need attention, eventually.

I do not disagree with you about proper checklists usage and discipline; in fact, at the three 141 schools at which I instructed checklist usage and discipline were hammered. ERAU, when I was there, emphasized heavily the differences between "read and do," flows, and "do and verify" checklists.