When did the young'uns become in such a race to run down a checklist as fast as humanly possible? Maybe I've become old having the privilege of flying independently in past years, but I was quite surprised to see how fast kids run through those useless pieces of laminated paper that they pull out of the crack between the dash and window. Its as if that paper has the power to put the brain on pause- master mags, zip a finger across the circuit breakers crank on the power, pull the mixture till the engine quits, then slam it back on to 'check function', check both mags without giving five seconds for the engine to stabilize on each mag, pull the prop control full back but only let the rpm drop 100 fling arounds a minute before slamming it back, cycle the carb heat back and forth a few times to ensure the linkage isn't binding up, pull the throttle back to idle so fast it backfires as the prop's momentum drives the engine for a few rotations, and hope for the best because the driver didn't garner the foggiest idea of that the engine is telling him in return for roughing it up so.

There are many times it's understandable to be in a hurry... sitting behind the wheel of an airplane is not one of them.

They're used to paying for the hobbs on a plane where several other people supposedly did the checklist allready.

It's the checklists that are longer than the Apollo 11 Flight Plan and the bill that accumulates spectacularly with every turn of the prop that encourages pilots to go through them fast. As long as they get every item.... who cares? Sure, you need to wait for carb heat and props, but mixtures and mags? Not really.

Try doing your lineup check slow at ZBB and see how that goes....

PS: What's the next rant? Flying with three white on the PAPIs? Not making square circuits? Not saying 'any conflicting?'

Those breakers stick out pretty good you won't miss it if one's tripped.

Make sure the primer is locked

I turned it 180 degrees after I pushed the locking tab through the slot, it's not going anywhere.

iflyforpie wrote:
PS: What's the next rant? Flying with three white on the PAPIs? Not making square circuits? Not saying 'any conflicting?'

He should sit through 767 doing a checklist, it might change his tune.

For me during training I would be on my downwind leg of a circuit, and I would know "very soon I have to turn to the base leg". It was a matter of getting a bit flustered trying to get the checks done in time so that I didn't overshoot the turn. When you don't have them memorized, it can be very cumbersome to read from it, correct your altitude, lose your spot on the sheet and try to find it, continue, etc. I found that when I was doing my checks the plane would veer off in whatever direction or gain/lose 100 feet. Just easier to go through it as quickly as possible. Not that you should do them as quickly as you can, but just a possible explanation for why some students/young people rush through it.

A short backtrack does not leave much time for a checklist. Are you just used to large airstrips?

I can't even remember the last time I used a checklist. I've been hooked on the 'left to right' flow for years, and have to really search the memory banks to think about when I missed an item last. To be fair, I don't fly a 767, either, but I would assume that the fellas that do have some practice in knowing what the priority items are and which aren't, and what either looks like at a glance.

My apologies to iflyforpie, I just need a place to lament my memory of the art of flying, as opposed to the exercise in robotics it seems to have become. I've got a couple more topics waiting in the wings, have no fear.

I probably should clarify, that my initial post was probably difficult to read into- I have no problem with an efficient checklist run through, whether it takes a minute or fifteen seconds. What troubles me to see is a minute long checklist done in fifteen seconds after which the pilot has no idea what he just did or why.

For instance, why should a prop be cycled at all during a runup, and what is the pilot looking for besides an obvious rpm drop?

For instance, why should a prop be cycled at all during a runup, and what is the pilot looking for besides an obvious rpm drop?

What kind of an airplane , engine , prop combination are you asking about?

Apology accepted.

The thing is, I've been around aviation long enough to realize that:

a) Nobody is perfect. I check out all kinds of individuals on our aircraft from wet-behind-the-ears PPLs to ex-Airlines ex-Forces types. You can find something to nitpick with anyone. Most of the stuff doesn't make a difference in the real world.

b) There is nothing new under the sun. Anything us 'young uns' do, you 'old uns' have done thousands of times over. Why are there acres and acres of scrap aircraft yards? Why are insurance rates so high? Why has the government hog tied us in red tape? It sure wasn't because of the flying my generation has done. Old pilots who are still flying have the experience and are often the cream of the crop of their colleagues.

For pulling back the prop, typically you are circulating oil; testing the function of the propeller, governor, and pump (yes, most have their own pump); and checking the reaction of the oil pressure gauge, and on feathering propellers checking the feather function.

On non-feathering propellers (with the exception of the Hamilton Standard counterweight prop, which like a compact feathering prop uses oil pressure for fine), I actually pull it until it is at its minimum RPM to exercise the piston through its full travel, thereby preventing the ridge of debris and sludge from accumulating at the normal cruise position.

Beefitarian wrote:I turned it 180 degrees after I pushed the locking tab through the slot, it's not going anywhere.

Same.

Yup it is about time for the 6 Monthly checklist rant

Zwil

The problem is pretty simple and rooted in the widespread FTU misunderstanding of how to use "checklists"

The solution is IMO pretty easy, all FTU's have to.

1) Realize that the purpose of a checklist is to help prevent mistake that will lead to a probable safety of flight issue. So for example the fact that the mixture is checked so that it is set correctly on the prelanding check is IMO worth while because failure to have the mixture properly set is a probable safety of flight issue. The fact that the primer could be unlocked when you are in the prelanding phase is IMO not very probable given that it has already been checked twice ( prestart after priming the engine and the pretakeoff checks) and the engine will be running like crap already if the primer is unlocked. So this becomes one of the many possible things you could check as part of a prelanding check, but do not not because it is not a probable safety of flight issue and you have better things to do like flying the aircraft and looking out the windshield.

2) A normal operations checklist is Not there to teach you how to do something or a substitute for knowing how to operate an aircraft system. (Note emergency checklists are a different topic). Therefore they should be as short as practicable.

3) Checklists have to ordered in a predictable flow to be useful. For Cessna trainers I like all checks to form a counterclockwise circle that starts at the centre floor mounted fuel selector and makes a circle around the instrument panel ending at the engine controls. Checklists that jump around are hard to use and encourage rushing because they waste time .

4) There has to be a clear distinction between "do lists" (ie read the item and then do it , read the next item and do it etc) and checklists where you do checks by memory using a flow to help you and then read the checklist to "check" that you have not forgotten any item. For low houred pilots in a single crew environment IMO the best way is to make checklists which are actioned when the aircraft is not moving or in cruise flight as "do lists" ( eg pretakeoff, descent and approach) and the rest as checklists (eg prelanding).

Finally any FTU that has students reading checklists as part of a prelanding check should fire the CFI


Six month annual checklist rant......................complete

tkdowell wrote:

Beefitarian wrote:I turned it 180 degrees after I pushed the locking tab through the slot, it's not going anywhere.

Same.

Are you saying it still came out? I'm already obsessive about that thing, you're only going to make me worse. Check.

Beefitarian wrote:

tkdowell wrote:

Beefitarian wrote:I turned it 180 degrees after I pushed the locking tab through the slot, it's not going anywhere.

Same.

Are you saying it still came out? I'm already obsessive about that thing, you're only going to make me worse. Check.

I have never seen a primer become unlocked in flight. I can't see how it could shake itself out. My initial comment was a satire on how redundant checklists are.

Ok that's a relief. I'm still going to need to check it a couple more times before we land.

I've seen them come out in flight before.

Curiously, our fuel-injected 337 has a manual primer for each engine buried at the bottom of the center console. I've never used them to start the plane, no mention is made of them in the POH or checklist; only the maintenance manual seems to acknowlege their presence.

Had one pop out on me in flight, but it didn't do anything. Push in, turn 180, and forget yet again.

I'm a huge advocate of checklists. Flow check to get going and then checklist to confirm everything was done prior to phase of flight. Not just reading the list but reading and confirming each item is as required. Anything else just sets you up for failure.

I think most of us can agree that the point of check lists are to make sure you do several important but really simple and therefore easy to forget things to make sure they are all in the correct condition or setting for what ever you're about to do.

Nothing happened when the primer came out on iflyforpie's 337 but it could cause your engine to stop because the fuel sent to the engine caused a over rich condition that lacked sufficient oxygen to maintain combustion followed by that unburned fuel entering the hot exaust where there may be enough air to support ignition resulting in a fire.

Sure we're kidding around here but I'm sure everyone in the thread takes checklists seriously. I do and I also honestly have a slight phobia about the primer.

primer came out ... it could cause your engine to stop

Wrong. All that can happen is that fuel siphons from the tank to the cylinders which are fed by the primer, which is often just one. So, just one cylinder will run rich, and rough. It will still produce some power, but not as much.

unburned fuel entering the hot exaust (SIC) where there may be enough air to support ignition resulting in a fire

Huh? All you're going to see is black smoke coming out the exhaust.

Far more important than a locked primer is the boost pump. I know of several Bonanzas that have crashed on takeoff because their owners turned the boost pump on for the Continental engines, which is almost always wrong. Electric boost pump for takeoff and landing is almost always good for Lycoming, but must be used with caution on Continental.

hz2p wrote:

primer came out ... it could cause your engine to stop

Wrong. All that can happen is that fuel siphons from the tank to the cylinders which are fed by the primer, which is often just one. So, just one cylinder will run rich, and rough. It will still produce some power, but not as much.

Well technically it could cause your engine to stop, though not directly. When the primer's out a lot of fuel goes through there and out the stack. I remember one fellow who didn't check his primer and since the lock was a little worn and loose it would wiggle out during flight. His poor 172 was getting the fuel burn of around 10 gallons an hour (normal should be around six). Rather than solve his problem, his philosophy was that it was just better to go with full fuel all the time. Of course there are so many things wrong with this its not even funny, but to cut it short, if that knob is out you're likely using fuel at a considerably higher rate than what one planned and of course increase your possibility of starving the engine of fuel.

To complete the story, I pointed out twice in a row that his primer was out when I was helping him fuel his airplane. I suggested it was possibly the cause of why his flying was less affordable than he was banking on. I'm not sure if he ever did fix it, If I remember he sold the plane shortly after.

Most primer systems on small Continental engines (O-200, O-300, also the IO-360s on our Skymaster) actually go to the intake manifold, where they will affect at least one bank of cylinders. But you most likely need some low pressure (vacuum from low throttle settings) to draw the fuel through.

Just because it probably won't cause a problem doesn't mean it can't. You sound like the guy that said, "It's indistructable." talking about the A-380.

hz2p wrote:Wrong. All that can happen is that fuel siphons from the tank to the cylinders which are fed by the primer, which is often just one. So, just one cylinder will run rich, and rough. It will still produce some power, but not as much.

No, you're a towel!

I agree if the primer rod of a 172 comes out what's probably going to happen is it will fill with fuel that would likely just sit in the primer system. Obviously the fuel's unlikely to leak to the engine at all let alone at a volume that's going to cause much problem further than running a little rich.

But... if enough fuel gets into even a single cylinder it could hydraulic and slow the engine to a point that even if it was popping and still sputtering (technically running) it might not even be equivalent to idle, do that to 2 cylinders of 4 I would wager it'll quit.

Most of that fuel's not going to burn in the cylinder because it's most likely still liquid and far too rich. Once it gets out into the exhaust it could evaporate and make a nice flammable cloud inside the cowl, maybe it won't ignite.

Beefitarian wrote:Just because it probably won't cause a problem doesn't mean it can't. You sound like the guy that said, "It's indistructable." talking about the A-380.

hz2p wrote:Wrong. All that can happen is that fuel siphons from the tank to the cylinders which are fed by the primer, which is often just one. So, just one cylinder will run rich, and rough. It will still produce some power, but not as much.

No, you're a towel!

I agree if the primer rod of a 172 comes out what's probably going to happen is it will fill with fuel that would likely just sit in the primer system. Obviously the fuel's unlikely to leak to the engine at all let alone at a volume that's going to cause much problem further than running a little rich.

But... if enough fuel gets into even a single cylinder it could hydraulic and slow the engine to a point that even if it was popping and still sputtering (technically running) it might not even be equivalent to idle, do that to 2 cylinders of 4 I would wager it'll quit.

Most of that fuel's not going to burn in the cylinder because it's most likely still liquid and far too rich. Once it gets out into the exhaust it could evaporate and make a nice flammable cloud inside the cowl, maybe it won't ignite.

Its an updraft intake system. Liquid fuel will not get lifted into the cylinders and any liquid will run down the carb and out the carb-heat flap, zero chance of ever hydraulic locking a typical GA flat-four with the primer in any phase of flight.
The primer like all piston pumps has a little check valve which prevents the piston from drawing fuel back from the primer pipes, if the primer is out this will allow a moderate amount of fuel to be sucked into the intake manifold.

-Grant