Effective passenger safety review

[Big Pistons Forever]

I don't want to make mountains out of molehills here, but have you - or your passengers - never accidentally caught your sleeve on a Cessna door handle in flight? Are you sure that if your passenger did they'd be sure to put it back? If it's not even a tiny flight safety issue, then why bother checking it on the ground?
.

You don't check the door is locked on the ground because it is a flight safety issue, it is not. The airplane will fly fine with the door unlatched. You check it because an unlatched the door will pop open half way through the takeoff which will scare the passengers. Also for most Pipers and Beechcraft's you can't close a popped door in flight so you have to come back and land which is a pain. I still see no need to check it as part of the prelanding check which was the specific point the original poster was talking about.

Photo

You are right my response was unnecessarily sarcastic. However I think there is a larger point to make. Instructors need to do some critical thinking about what they are teaching. There is IMO too many FTU-isms mindlessly passed down through each generation of instructors. As an instructor you should be able to answer the "why" question for everything you do.

In this example if you ask yourself "why" you need to check the door is latched on the before landing checklist and then rank this answer in order of importance with all the other things that must be done/should be done/nice to be done; prior to landing I think you will find it very near the bottom of the list.......

[CpnCrunch]

I've had quite a few old Cessna doors opening in flight - usually on the takeoff roll, or after landing. All were properly closed, just crappy mechanisms. I know BPF said a while ago that you shouldn't bang the doors closed on the 150, but I think that might help keep the damn things closed. Anyway, it's no big deal as long as you don't let it distract you at a critical moment.

The Pipers have much better door locking, although I would worry about getting out of that single, well-locked door in an accident.

[PilotDAR]

The information I convey to a passenger will always contain minimums (how the seatbelt works, and how they get out, being the main ones). Otherwise the briefing will be more tailored to the knowledge and participation of that particular passenger. Some, I keep it real simple - I want them to recall only the very basics, so that, they get right first time. Others, I'll go into more detail, just because they are interested - the "whys" of things.

I assure that passenger hear and see me preforming the appropriate checks, but most certainly landing gear position pre landing in an amphibian. I want them to know it was checked.

I avoid getting passengers "involved" in other checks or abnormal procedures. My job is to give a passenger a nice "ride". If they are a learning pilot, on the other hand, they will get a whole dissertation on what and why at every stage.

As for doors, I will always explain how they get out, but otherwise that I'll do the door. I always tell passengers that if they feel ill, they should tell me early on, and I always ask them if they have any questions.

[DonutHole]

I always teach my passengers how to turn off the master. Electrical fires are no joke and most can be put out by turning off the master.

[TC Aviator]

Folks,
The "passenger safety review" in the landing criteria is meant to ensure that new and older pilots not forget about their "passengers" and is a simple and basic review such as "Doors closed and locked, seat belts secure". It was included as too many flight test candidates used to ignore the examiner/mock passenger while conducting pre-landing checks.

[trey kule]

Now, that makes sense to me.

Perhaps though, if TC still holds instructor safety courses, they can take a few moments and explain to instructors the difference between a briefing and a review. Judging by the posts here the FTU's are not doing a very good job of it.

Perhaps call it a prelanding cabinsafety check...review is maybe not the best word,

[photofly]

And let's not waste another opportunity to blame flight instructors for something!

[trey kule]

I never thought of it in that light.

In my opinion , based on what I read here there is an issue of misunderstanding.

The questions being identifying the source, and correcting it.
If something is a problem on flight tests in a consistient manner, than yes, it is probably an instructor related issue.

And the TC refresher courses are, in my opinion, the best was to resolve the issue. Read the posts. I asked the question. You gave an answer that both words existed. Reading the other posts, how many got it?

Problems arise in training. A training unit, and its instructors seek constantly to identify training problems as they know they will sneak into any program. And they welcome the opportunity to make changes to improve the whole unit.

On the other hand...one could perceive any suggestion that makes a person realize they might have been doing something in error, and go on the defensive. For example, ..seeing it not as a suggested resolution to a problem, but as an opportunity to blame. In my experience, that attitude will not bring about positive changes in any organization.

We all make mistakes. All of us. When an error is pointed out , great pilots change. Poor pilots become defensive....human nature maybe.

[photofly]

Folks,
The "passenger safety review" in the landing criteria is meant to ensure that new and older pilots not forget about their "passengers" and is a simple and basic review such as "Doors closed and locked, seat belts secure". It was included as too many flight test candidates used to ignore the examiner/mock passenger while conducting pre-landing checks.

Fifth post in the thread:

We'll be landing soon so make sure your bags are stowed, your seat is upright, and your seat belt is fastened, please.

Ref:605.25, 602.86

I'm not sure there's too much to be defensive about.

[trey kule]

Ah, perhaps then, I misinterpreted your motivation for posting this.

And let's not waste another opportunity to blame flight instructors for something!

My point is this. Looking at all the other posts, which, if you read my posts you will note did not include you, PF, there is a very common misunderstanding.

Now, this could easily be resolved by tomorrow if the CFI of an FTU simply has a little 10 minute meeting with their instructors...problem solved. All instructors up to speed, and soon the new pilots will understand what a safety review is and how it differs from a preflight pax briefing ( And, quite frankly, CFIs should have picked this up if they were doing Q&A checks...

Now call me jaded, and instructor bashing, but how many CFI' s do you suppose wii bother to deal with this?

[photofly]

I just reviewed the thread. It looks like everyone who took the trouble to post is doing it just about right. Even FenderManDan, who asked the original question. I'm sure there are many topics that a CFI could gainfully review with his or her instructors for 10 minutes - maybe even this one, on a slow day - but repectfully I don't see that "Judging by the posts here the FTU's are not doing a very good job of it."

If Avcanada has any value it's that someone can post a question about something of which they're unsure, read various opinions that sometimes conflict, and find an answer that satisfies them. There isn't always a wider lesson that has to be drawn about the quality of flight training in Canada.

[jjbaker]

If Avcanada has any value it's that someone can post a question about something of which they're unsure, read various opinions that sometimes conflict, and find an answer that satisfies them. There isn't always a wider lesson that has to be drawn about the quality of flight training in Canada.

+1

The problems of ambiguous test standards and requirements are not a Canadian issue alone.
I used to teach safety seminars and wrote a article or two on passenger briefings and the common denominator is that opinions go far apart on what is "effective" vs. "legal" vs. "common sense" based.
Effective is whatever the examiner deems effective and that's that. Effective in the real world is what saves your passengers ass.

My personal rule: Cover the legals (required items, seatbelts, exits, smoking aso) and provide enough information for a passenger to be able to exit a upset aircraft and/ or avoid drowning if the pilot is incapacitated. One thing I repeatedly saw as a potential issue is the opening of seatbelts. People are not dumb, but some will drown and get stuck with fairly simple mechanisms in a upset, or find themselves unable to open a seatbelt when hanging in it upside down. I do want pax to point out traffic if they think its a factor and I do want them to observe sterile cockpit. I won't bless pax with any blah blah about short fields or turbulence nor will I present anything as abnormal, such as a go around or heavy braking after touchdown.

One thing to surely skip is talking about the "Jesus Nut" or any sort of "the plane will fall apart if..." talking. I used to fly as a per diem "feel good copilot" on a Charter plane which was captained by someone who would bring hammers like that. In one instance, I found the pilot innocently briefing 5 passengers on the airplanes most common failure points, resulting in a unplanned deadhead on the way home.