"Use of checklist" is an item on all Practical Test Standards. It should be, as we all forget things and checklists help us remember items that may inconvience us, damage the airplane, or kill us.
However there are a variety of ways to use a checklist. (long academic article here: http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/adegani/Cockpit%20Checklists.pdf)
I was taught the read-say-do method, but that was rather quickly ignored after the runup.
In rentals no one ever said, "Please don't run that engine on the ground for extended periods..."
It was only after I started hanging around and flying with owners that I learned about maintenance costs and breakdown causes. I received my HP endorsement from a very capable instructor and we spent considerable time on the ground talking about the engine and related systems. The light bulb went off and I started listening more, asking more questions (I've been blessed with a couple of very helpful, long time A&P-IAs who were willing to answer), reading more and learning more about powerplants.
Now that I'm an owner of an antique, I have an intense interest in the engine. I've assisted with annuals, helped remove the engine, and even produced some of the simpler parts that are no longer made. All this changed my perspective about these engines and how they should be run.
So, my new teaching method is to sit with the student in the airplane with the engine OFF and walk through the hows and the ways of a runup before the key is in the ignition: Why do we do a mag check? What are we looking for when we pull the prop knob back?
Of course very few absorb all this. But the key learning point is there is a why to each checklist item. After a few dozen startups and runups they get it, and move through the process with alacrity.
I also teach students a flow approach in simple trainers. The checklist is used to check, not direct. The checklist is in one hand, the eyes and finger are waving across the panel in an orderly fashion. The checklist portion is read and confirms what was checked in the flow.
This approach inculcates a sense of responsibility in the pilot. Read then do absolves the students of the need to memorize and learn what he's checking and why. Check, do, and review makes sense because the checklist becomes what it should be: a check list.
In addition, the read then do method is simply too slow for emergency procedures, which is when doing the right thing in the right order is most critical (and there's little or no time to pull and read the checklist).
So it's best to drill pilot knowledge of the airplane and its systems, not over-reliance on laminated card stock.
However, this approach is not applicable to large, complex systems such as Nuclear Weapons (BTDT as a Crew Chief), powerplants, and certain aircraft. In those more complicated systems a read than do approach makes sense for certain operations. But not all (we didn't read a checklist as we hooked up a trailer, for example. We would do the hookup, get the tug and trailer mating done, and then read through the checklist to confirm that the process was completed correctly).
Cessna 15xs, Piper PA-28s, and even Beech Bonanzas are not in this class.
I found this article by J. Mac MacClellan in Sport Aviation magazine: http://macsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/046-050_leftseatJUNE.pdf
However there are a variety of ways to use a checklist. (long academic article here: http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/adegani/Cockpit%20Checklists.pdf)
I was taught the read-say-do method, but that was rather quickly ignored after the runup.
In rentals no one ever said, "Please don't run that engine on the ground for extended periods..."
It was only after I started hanging around and flying with owners that I learned about maintenance costs and breakdown causes. I received my HP endorsement from a very capable instructor and we spent considerable time on the ground talking about the engine and related systems. The light bulb went off and I started listening more, asking more questions (I've been blessed with a couple of very helpful, long time A&P-IAs who were willing to answer), reading more and learning more about powerplants.
Now that I'm an owner of an antique, I have an intense interest in the engine. I've assisted with annuals, helped remove the engine, and even produced some of the simpler parts that are no longer made. All this changed my perspective about these engines and how they should be run.
So, my new teaching method is to sit with the student in the airplane with the engine OFF and walk through the hows and the ways of a runup before the key is in the ignition: Why do we do a mag check? What are we looking for when we pull the prop knob back?
Of course very few absorb all this. But the key learning point is there is a why to each checklist item. After a few dozen startups and runups they get it, and move through the process with alacrity.
I also teach students a flow approach in simple trainers. The checklist is used to check, not direct. The checklist is in one hand, the eyes and finger are waving across the panel in an orderly fashion. The checklist portion is read and confirms what was checked in the flow.
This approach inculcates a sense of responsibility in the pilot. Read then do absolves the students of the need to memorize and learn what he's checking and why. Check, do, and review makes sense because the checklist becomes what it should be: a check list.
In addition, the read then do method is simply too slow for emergency procedures, which is when doing the right thing in the right order is most critical (and there's little or no time to pull and read the checklist).
So it's best to drill pilot knowledge of the airplane and its systems, not over-reliance on laminated card stock.
However, this approach is not applicable to large, complex systems such as Nuclear Weapons (BTDT as a Crew Chief), powerplants, and certain aircraft. In those more complicated systems a read than do approach makes sense for certain operations. But not all (we didn't read a checklist as we hooked up a trailer, for example. We would do the hookup, get the tug and trailer mating done, and then read through the checklist to confirm that the process was completed correctly).
Cessna 15xs, Piper PA-28s, and even Beech Bonanzas are not in this class.
I found this article by J. Mac MacClellan in Sport Aviation magazine: http://macsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/046-050_leftseatJUNE.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to comment!