Checklists.

[Fitzroy]

Greetings,

We have a small group of flyers who share a couple of 172s. I'm wondering what the regulation (Canadian) is, if there is one, regarding exactly what is on a standard run up checklist. Can we use an off the shelf plastic list we purchase? Does it exactly have to reflect what is in the POH? Can it have V speeds printed on it as a reminder? Thanks,

Peter

[dirtdr]

I make my own checklist to go with the cockpit flow I personally use in each aircraft I fly (which isnt very many)

I dont think there is any CAR saying what has to be on the checklist, as long as all items covered in the POH are there you are fine.

You can have whatever supplementary info on the card that you wish.

[Oscar]

CAR 602.60 touches on what checklists shall accomplish:

602.60

(1) No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft, other than an ultra-light aeroplane, unless the following operational and emergency equipment is carried on board:

(a) a checklist or placards that enable the aircraft to be operated in accordance with limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual, aircraft operating manual, pilot operating handbook or any equivalent document provided by the manufacturer;

(2) A checklist or placards referred to in paragraph (1)(a) shall enable the aircraft to be operated in normal, abnormal and emergency conditions and shall include:

(a) a pre-start check;
(b) a pre-take-off check;
(c) a post-take-off check;
(d) a pre-landing check; and
(e) emergency procedures.

(3) Emergency procedures referred to in paragraph (2)(e) shall include:

(a) emergency operation of fuel, hydraulic, electrical and mechanical systems, where applicable;
(b) emergency operation of instruments and controls, where applicable;
(c) engine inoperative procedures; and
(d) any other procedure that is necessary for aviation safety.

(4) Checks and emergency procedures referred to in subsections (2) and (3) shall be performed and followed where they are applicable.

So if your own checklist does this, you're good to go.

Cheers

[cessnafloatflyer]

Well not exactly, the above CAR says that the checklist should be in accoradnce with the POH (for a 172.) So I would think that means verbatim from the POH. You can add whatever speeds or information that you want as long as it is in the POH as well.

[AirFrame]

Well not exactly, the above CAR says that the checklist should be in accoradnce with the POH (for a 172.) So I would think that means verbatim from the POH.

Not quite. It says "in accordance with the limitations specified in..." That means as long as your checklist has you operating within any limitations specified in the manufacturer's paperwork, you're good. You could specify a Vne or cruise speed 20 knots lower than the manufacturer, for example. Or a lower max gross, or a restricted CG range (within the "stock" limits).

What you can't do, is make your own checklist that says your 172 is aerobatic, or that it can carry 3000lb, etc.

[cessnafloatflyer]

Yes you can be within the limits not outside them.
But you'd best have the published checklist on board, not your own to be legal.

[Big Pistons Forever]

As already posted, the CAR's state that the checklist shall be in accordance with the limitations set out in the POH. The limitations are recorded in Section 2 of the POH, however the checklists that that cover emergencies are in Section 3 and regular checklists are in Section 4.

The POH do not make following the checklists provided in the POH mandatory. For instance the C 172S POH has the following statement in the introduction to section 3

Quote Should an emergency arise the basic guidelines described in this section should be considered and applied as necessary to correct the problem unquote.

Bottom line you can make your checklist as long as they conform to any limitations stated in section 1. I have made my own checklist for all the training aircraft I fly. I think they are better organized and follow a more consistent flow than the POH ones.

[cessnafloatflyer]

I'm not sure that emergency check lists are the same as normal procedures in that reference.

In any case, if I were in court having to defend my check list I think it preferable to tell the court that I was using the checklists that were published in the POH at the time of the accident and that they were on board and in reach of the pilot.

Since this is a shared aircraft, that would be my advice. It's worth what you paid for it, but worthy of consideration.

[trampbike]

Bring your POH on board, you'll be legal for sure.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Bring your POH on board, you'll be legal for sure.

For all the new Cessna's the POH is listed as "required" in the aircraft equipment list so leaving it at home is not an option. I still believe that you do not have to mindlessly follow the POH checklists which IMO are not particularly well laid out.

[AuxBatOn]

You need a checklist to fly a C172?? My car is more complex than a 172....

[Big Pistons Forever]

You need a checklist to fly a C172?? My car is more complex than a 172....

You probably learned on the Slingsby a fixed gear 160 hp airplane just like the C 172. The Air Force gave you a checklist for the same reason flying schools give their students a checklist.

And no your car has at lot less ways to kill you than a C 172, but hey, I wouldn't want to get in the way of your gratuitous shot as us lesser mortals

[CFR]

You need a checklist to fly a C172?? My car is more complex than a 172....

You probably learned on the Slingsby a fixed gear 160 hp airplane just like the C 172. The Air Force gave you a checklist for the same reason flying schools give their students a checklist.

And no your car has at lot less ways to kill you than a C 172, but hey, I wouldn't want to get in the way of your gratuitous shot as us lesser mortals

1) I love my Slingsby! (although I wish it was the M200)

2) I have the POH on board.

3) I use my own checklist that contains the info in the POH checklist, but organized the way I want it.

4) I can think of many more important things to worry about possibly defending in court, than my checklist!!!

[PilotDAR]

It's a checklist, It tells you what you should check that you have done to assure configuration and operation of the aircraft. It is not the operating instructions for the aircraft, the Flight Manual, ("procedures" sections) is the document for that purpose.

Oscar has kindly quoted the CARS. In the quote, the term "...or placards..." is presented. The limitations applicable in flight are placarded for the pilot's convenience, for example, the limiting speeds are all marked on the airspeed indicator, maximum RPM on the tach, oil pressure on the pressure gauge, and so forth.

If a pilot wishes to use a checklist to assure configuration while flying a GA aircraft, that's up to the pilot. Most recent GA aircraft provide it in the approved Fight Manual, and Flight Manual Supplements. Checklist contents, complexity and flow, as presented in the Flight Manual, are considered for human factors during certification, and are a part of the approved Flight Manual. So, technically, they are approved. Redrafting checklist format could be defeating the effort put into originating these approved documents, and resulting in a document which is no longer approved. If you started with an approved document, would you want to redraft it so it was no longer the same as the approved version?

I don't envision a checklist being used by a pilot to confirm that they have not just exceeded Vne, or the limiting engine RPM. Red lines are presented for that.

I don't believe that a pilot should use a checklist as a "to do" list, as to how to fly the aircraft. That is pilot skill and proficiency.

[trey kule]

Well, after reading Auxbats comments that a 1986 Toyota Corrola is more complex than a C172 , and PilotDars comments that it is a checklist, not a how to fly.I had to join in.

I pulled a couple examples of POH checklists off the internet, which I hope are representative.

Here is what I found....
There is a checklist for the walkaround.....I have never, absolutely never seen a pilot doing a walkaround on a C172 refer to, or even carry a checklist
The number of reduncancies was mind boggling. And yes, PD, they are flight instructions.
I had a look at the emergency checklist..blows me away, as these do not seem to be memory items....
I can see how it will work....engine failure at low altitude. Reach for the checklist to check on your speed, mixture, fuel shutoff.....and after a couple more items including checking to make sure you called ATC, the master switch. How exactly anyone would believe that you would refer to a checklist in this sitation is beyond me.
Fly the plane...nope. Not on the checklist. Pick a suitable spot, avoid obstacles...nope...not on the checklist
But....advise ATC...that is on the checklist

I think the biggest problem is we are continually confusing (as TC does) with training and the differences between complex and simple aircraft.
Checklists have their place, and I am a firm believer in them if they are used appropriately.
But what is being touted as check lists for the C172 are mainly not checklists. And , for the most part, are useless...how in he k do you refer to a checklist after takeoff to confirm you lifted the nose wheel at 55KIAS? Does something happen if you did not do it until 56? Can you retain a lookout while referring to the checklist and your ASI? I guess it is not a problem because there is no checklist item for looking outside the cockpit ( and the vast majority of 172 take offs, are VFR I think)

[GyvAir]

I think there is also a confusion between an actual checklist that would be in your hand as you perform the actions and checks, versus a list of items that you should commit to memory in some way, versus a training checklist for a student to take 30 seconds to look over just prior to taxiing as a review of what to do and expect, not as something to tick the boxes off on while on the takeoff roll.
Unfortunately, they often get morphed and merged over time into one all-purpose mega checklist that's no good for anything.

[cessnafloatflyer]

I do very much agree that the published checklist have a peculiar order and beg to be rewritten. As far as checklist, simplicity and cars go: never left the headlights on, locked the doors and walked away?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have a walk around checklist which was taken from the POH and amplified as necessary to provide the reasons why the actions where done. I give it to new PPL students to study as part of their homework and so that when I show them how to do the walk around they have an idea of the what and why. As part of teaching the the walk around I emphasize that they use the physical parts of the aircraft, going from one to the other in a logical order as an aid to the check, but if they are not sure of what to do next they can consult the list in order to make sure nothing gets forgotten.

As for memory recall emergency checks I use the industry standard of bolding those checks which must be memorized a practice Cessna adopted on all post 1980 single engine Cessna's.

One of the things I find aggravating is when the Avcanada Skygods show up on the training forum and forgetting that they were not born with 10,000 hours and so for instance the "don't need no stinking checklists" vibe probably wasn't so absolute when they had 25 hours.

From what I can see most of the people reading this forum are low time pilots and so what is undoubtedly unnecessary overkill for the gazillion hour guys actually has some real value to the 100 hour pilot who may be on his first flight in a month.

You think flight training is so messed up that you need to come on Avcanada and heap ridicule on how light aircraft are operated.....fine well nothing is stopping you from getting a flight instructor rating and doing ab initio training yourself.......

[AuxBatOn]

You need a checklist to fly a C172?? My car is more complex than a 172....

You probably learned on the Slingsby a fixed gear 160 hp airplane just like the C 172. The Air Force gave you a checklist for the same reason flying schools give their students a checklist.

And no your car has at lot less ways to kill you than a C 172, but hey, I wouldn't want to get in the way of your gratuitous shot as us lesser mortals

Sure, I was given a "checklist" for every aircraft I flew/fly. They are more an aide-memoire to help new pilots on type develop flows they are going to use day-to-day. Other than for some non-critical emergencies, I do not know any single seat pilot that physically use a checklist before, during and after a flight. I can't talk for other communities.

Taking your "checklist" out every flight and mindlessly reading it line by line every flight is not going to somehow make you a better or safer pilot. In-depth knowledge of the systems in your aircraft and proficiency in their use is what makes you better. A checklist should only be a tool in the early stage of training to build flows, but a lot of people (and a lot of instructors are proponent of) make it a crutch because of their lack of understanding of aircraft systems.

Re: cars vs 172: most cars now have everything electrical (drive by wire, Electronic power control, etc) This is far more complicated to understand than an all-mechanical C172.

[trey kule]

I have a walk around checklist which was taken from the POH and amplified as necessary to provide the reasons why the actions where done. I give it to new PPL students to study as part of their homework and so that when I show them how to do the walk around they have an idea of the what and why. As part of teaching the the walk around I emphasize that they use the physical parts of the aircraft, going from one to the other in a logical order as an aid to the check, but if they are not sure of what to do next they can consult the list in order to make sure nothing gets forgotten.

A perfect example of the confusion between the purpose of a check list, and a training aid. You "amplified it". Stating the reasons for this or that does not belong on anything referred to as a checklist.

Once we get by the confusion, we can design and use check lists, where appropriate, appropriately.

BTW...I started with 0 hours. Our checklist was , Harness and hatches, Try My Finger For Size Charlie,Switches and instruments.....all memory items. And I have not forgotten it almost 50 years later. It is to easy in the training role to try and help the student by allowing them to use aids as crutches.

I have seen more than a few ab initio instructors who , when they were flying, took the attitude they didnt need no stinking checklist. Be careful of where you point fingers

[PilotDAR]

I have never, absolutely never seen a pilot doing a walkaround on a C172 refer to, or even carry a checklist

Nor have I - for a 172. However, during my flying of the Schweizer 300, MD500, the DA-42, the Caravan, and a few others, I did walk around the aircraft, carrying the Flight Manual, and reading from the checklist that the items I was visually checking were those required. I was not very familiar with the aircraft, and so I would be irresponsible in not using the aids provided to assure configuration. I similarly flew the aircraft with reference to an approved checklist. I wanted to fly the plane responsibly, and checklist use is one of the ways to demonstrate that.

When I checked myself out in the Tiger Moth, no checklist was available, 'couldn't find a Flight Manual either. So, during my walk around (as it had not flown in nearly 10 years) I pretended that some cranky old WW 1 ace was tottering around behind me about to yell all the things I might miss, and fail my PPC before I got in. I found things which the mechanics had to correct before I would fly it. Once in and all strapped in, I did a control check (with no reference to a checklist, I just know it's a good idea). Dang if the ailerons didn't move kinda funny. So, I got back out, walked up to the boss' office, and asked. Yup, they were indeed working properly. There was zero paper in the cockpit when I flew (other than my license, C of A and C of R, of course ). Somehow it all worked out okay.

Yeah, some Cessna lawyers got into the middle of the act writing the flight manuals and checklists. But after the totally silly legal settlements, I can't blame Cessna for holding their nose and putting all that silly stuff in there - it is still FAA approved!

I'm not against the use checklists, particularly by pilot new to the type or class of aircraft, it's an appropriately humbling experience. I resist the home made, multi page format of capturing everything, so thinking is not required, and the pilot is task saturated just reading it. If your aircraft is bristling with mods and Flight Manual Supplements, which cause changed checklist items, or your operation has elements which should be included, but are so unique that the manufacturer did not capture them, (like check the skis are not frozen down), then there is cause to add a few items to the otherwise "approved" checklist you will develop. Otherwise, the approved checklist should meet, or (in Cessna's case) exceed the detail for checklist items to fly safely.

An approved checklist is an aid to good airmanship, not a replacement for it!

On the other hand, I have performed the inspection for the annual airworthiness certification for each of the 28 years I have owned my 150. I used the inspection checklist EVERY time, and initialed every item. It seems I have the confidence to fly it without ever looking at the pilot's checklist, but I insist on inspecting it with the inspection checklist. But, I only inspect it once a year, I fly it much more often!

[cgzro]

Once in and all strapped in, I did a control check (with no reference to a checklist, I just know it's a good idea). Dang if the ailerons didn't move kinda funny. So, I got back out, walked up to the boss' office, and asked. Yup, they were indeed working properly.

ahh yes the reversal to counter adverse yaw. The Tiger has horrendous adverse yaw from the ailerons and so at full up deflection on one side it reduces or neutralizes the opposite side downward going aileron. I had never seen this with a full scale aircraft when I first flew the Tiger but was familiar with it from model aircraft so was not surprised by it.

Really important to keep the damn ailerons neutral in a stall in that plane otherwise ...

[Liquid Charlie]

KISS principal -- design the check list from a flow not helter skelter and then once you get familiar most of your checks can be done by flow - pick out the "killer" items and make sure they are part of it -- but simple is best --

Walk arounds -- for me it's simple -- no one hit the aeroplane - tires are OK oleos look good and such -- I for one do not overhaul an aircraft in a walk around -- but then again I have engineers doing DI's as well

[Illya Kuryakin]

KISS principal -- design the check list from a flow not helter skelter and then once you get familiar most of your checks can be done by flow - pick out the "killer" items and make sure they are part of it -- but simple is best --

Walk arounds -- for me it's simple -- no one hit the aeroplane - tires are OK oleos look good and such -- I for one do not overhaul an aircraft in a walk around -- but then again I have engineers doing DI's as well

Best advice here. I'd expect nothing less. Print up a small card with all (there are very few ) "kill" items. And the odd thing you guys all think should be included, laminate it, toss it where you can reach it, toss a POH in a seat back.....and go fly young grasshoppers!
Illya

[PilotDAR]

pick out the "killer" items and make sure they are part of it

Some pot stirring questions:

Shouldn't "killer items" be airmanship items, and above the level of having to be written down at all? Most of us agree that Cessna writing "raise the nose at 55 knots" is rather silly, but that goes to the heart of my point.

When there is an approved checklist available (which I agree might be a composite of the FM and FMS(s) checklists, is the pilot/owner competent to decide on the content of a different version?

Checklist development is an important task (as they are required for certification). I'm interested in understanding the thresholds for what should and should not (too "should be airmanship", or too "doesn't really matter that much") be included. An some things are simply wrong from the manufacturer, and get approved anyway.

One of my jobs once was to vet a manufacturer's flight manual for a new version of their light twin. I found many things in the flight manual to question, just simple "why would you do that?" type stuff. My first question was: "Has your legal team reviewed this?". A "checklist" item in emergency procedures, under alternator failure, read "Extend Landing Gear". Why, I asked... The rational of the non pilot, non engineer who had drafted the revised manual was; that because the landing gear depended up electricity for normal operation, if your electrical generation was compromised, you should extend it while you can. Though I see some though in that, I pointed out that I would rather belly a plane in on shore, than not make it to shore, 'cause I'd extended the wheels an hour off shore, and the reduced performance prevented me making it at all.

In situations like that, I will sometimes write in the "procedures" (not checklist) section: "In the event of X, consider doing Y", so the pilot knows they should think about it, and weigh their choices, but it is airmanship, a level above the airplane telling you how to fly it, you should decide that based upon your skill and competency...

Thanks for enduring the stirred pot!