this is what happens when you do the checklist from memory!

[dacamp66]

The only reason needed why you should ALWAYS do your checklist directly from the document and NOT FROM MEMORY (warning: graphic!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH5hs0B5Oks
I believe these were DeHavilland Canada test pilots working with the prototype dhc-4 turbo caribou; they died because they forgot to unlock the control surface gust locks.
ALWAYS USE YOUR CHECKLISTS! that is why they are there! an extra 20 minutes on the ground can mean an extra 20 years of life!

[roxmate]

You can and you sould perform a startup from memory to save up time, its called "flow". Obviously after you do a flow you should check out the paper checklists, that´s what they are meant for, to check if the procedures made in the previously are actually correct and nothing has been forgoten.

[RedRavenSounds]

You can and you should perform a startup from memory to save up time, its called "flow". Obviously after you do a flow you should check out the paper checklists, that´s what they are meant for, to check if the procedures made in the previously are actually correct and nothing has been forgotten.

Hmmmmm - each to his/her own I guess, but as a general aviation (Private - single engine rated) pilot, I use checklists (I have the laminated ones for the C-172 and C-152) you can get them from Sporty's, with me. I don't want to save time - I want to be thorough.

If you are rushing and saving time, you (or on startup, your engine) can end up in a bad way - just as "I gotta get there itis" can get you very very dead. I am not in a rush when I fly. I have approaching a thousand hours in the log so "easy does it" works for me.

Yes, from wrote, startup is pretty simple, set the brakes, crack the throttle, prime, (mixture idle cutoff to start) open the window, yell clear and turn the key, and set the mixture in the green on the EGT.

But startup by the checklist, as do all checklist procedures, provides redundancy, and accuracy, and makes a better pilot (IMHO), and a safer flight, that begins at rolling the aircraft out of the hangar, or if tied down, approaching it . But as I say, its an individual choice, and if relying on memory works for an individual (assuming it does not jeopardize other aircraft, personnel or operations) - okee doke by me .

[DC3]

You can and you sould perform a startup from memory to save up time, its called "flow". Obviously after you do a flow you should check out the paper checklists, that´s what they are meant for, to check if the procedures made in the previously are actually correct and nothing has been forgoten.

Flow has become quite popular. If the checklists are being checked subsequent to the memorized startup using flow, I am kind of curious about what time is being saved? The whole idea of "saving time" seems to be a very dangerous and risky idea. However, professional pilots are taught and do follow a "flow" but they also do the call and response on the checklist. And even though professional pilots always have a schedule to meet companies do require them to use a checklist. After a checklist has been done for 500 startups/takeoffs/departures/approaches/landings/taxi I imagine it can get pretty much like knowing it in ones sleep. But distractions do occur and those are the things that disrupt flow and throw wrenches into what would normally be a routine thing (and it should be a routine thing) and this is where adhering to the checklist pays off in not forgetting that one little critical thing that keeps things on a normal and albeit boring track.

[RedRavenSounds]

You can and you sould perform a startup from memory to save up time, its called "flow". Obviously after you do a flow you should check out the paper checklists, that´s what they are meant for, to check if the procedures made in the previously are actually correct and nothing has been forgoten.

Flow has become quite popular. If the checklists are being checked subsequent to the memorized startup using flow, I am kind of curious about what time is being saved? The whole idea of "saving time" seems to be a very dangerous and risky idea. However, professional pilots are taught and do follow a "flow" but they also do the call and response on the checklist. And even though professional pilots always have a schedule to meet companies do require them to use a checklist. After a checklist has been done for 500 startups/takeoffs/departures/approaches/landings/taxi I imagine it can get pretty much like knowing it in ones sleep. But distractions do occur and those are the things that disrupt flow and throw wrenches into what would normally be a routine thing (and it should be a routine thing) and this is where adhering to the checklist pays off in not forgetting that one little critical thing that keeps things on a normal and albeit boring track.

Yes indeed - and as far as I'm concerned - Flow -shmo. Flow, as you say, does not save time, if you are using your checklist anyway. It also seems to me that "flow" could in time, lead to more "flow" How about "flow" for your pre-flight???, or flow for take-off procedures- and less emphasis on checklists. Folks can keep their flow, and saving time (dubious) I'll stay with my laminated Sporty's checklist(s). I'm not in a race - and if I need to "save" time - I should have left for the airport sooner. Just this gal's most humble opinion.

[dacamp66]

remember the old saying: "there are old pilots, bold pilots, but no old bold pilots" the bold ones tend to remove themselves from the gene pool pretty quickly.
most pilots that have been flying for any great amount of hours tend to be very "procedure oriented" (i.e. always follow the checklist) even when they are only going up for a 30 minute "engine checkout".
It is by following the checklist that you kill potential problems on the ground before they can kill YOU in the air.
failure to pay proper respect to the machine you are operating (and which can and will kill you given the slightest opportunity)will give you a first hand experience of Orville's Law (see below)

[DHenriques_]

remember the old saying: "there are old pilots, bold pilots, but no old bold pilots" the bold ones tend to remove themselves from the gene pool pretty quickly.
most pilots that have been flying for any great amount of hours tend to be very "procedure oriented" (i.e. always follow the checklist) even when they are only going up for a 30 minute "engine checkout".
It is by following the checklist that you kill potential problems on the ground before they can kill YOU in the air.
failure to pay proper respect to the machine you are operating (and which can and will kill you given the slightest opportunity)will give you a first hand experience of Orville's Law (see below)

Most good pilots will use a combination of printed checklist, flows, and mnemonics dependent on aircraft type, and the pilot's personal experience in that type and the scenario environment in which these are used.
As with all things aviation, seldom is something written in stone but rather through compromise and experience.
Dudley Henriques

[AKar]

I am rather against the way the checklists are sometimes used. In many flows the checklist should not work as to-do list from which you pick the items one by one and execute them. If one thinks about it, it's awkward and distracting to use lists that way as your attention is shared between the list and the items (and it looks dumb!). Even worse, it kills the whole purpose of having a checklist! That is, to have a positive check that all the necessary items are performed. If the list is used as a to-do one, all it takes is to miss a line of it to get screwed up.

A well-learned flow is very reliable and flexible way of getting stuff done. Their purpose is not to save time in particular, but to allow more efficient workflow. The checklist is then read through to positively check that no items were missed or set erroneously. Of course, then there are certain procedures in many airplanes that can not be expected to come reliably from memory. For those the appropriate QRH page or whatever should be used as work guide.

All this is just my opinion after seeing rather different approaches to common problems.


-Esa

[Rocket_Bird]

You can and you should perform a startup from memory to save up time, its called "flow". Obviously after you do a flow you should check out the paper checklists, that´s what they are meant for, to check if the procedures made in the previously are actually correct and nothing has been forgotten.

Hmmmmm - each to his/her own I guess, but as a general aviation (Private - single engine rated) pilot, I use checklists (I have the laminated ones for the C-172 and C-152) you can get them from Sporty's, with me. I don't want to save time - I want to be thorough.

If you are rushing and saving time, you (or on startup, your engine) can end up in a bad way - just as "I gotta get there itis" can get you very very dead. I am not in a rush when I fly. I have approaching a thousand hours in the log so "easy does it" works for me.

Yes, from wrote, startup is pretty simple, set the brakes, crack the throttle, prime, (mixture idle cutoff to start) open the window, yell clear and turn the key, and set the mixture in the green on the EGT.

But startup by the checklist, as do all checklist procedures, provides redundancy, and accuracy, and makes a better pilot (IMHO), and a safer flight, that begins at rolling the aircraft out of the hangar, or if tied down, approaching it . But as I say, its an individual choice, and if relying on memory works for an individual (assuming it does not jeopardize other aircraft, personnel or operations) - okee doke by me .

In commercial operations, we use flows followed by the checklist. I know in flight school, we tend to follow each item step by step on the checklist, but realistically, doing flows has the benefit of being both efficient in managing time--particularly in busy airspace with a lot of radio chatter--and in knowing the aircraft. It's kind of like doing memory items from the emergency checklist.

This is not to say to ignore the checklist. The checklist is always a priority item that must be done. But it's generally far easier to flip the switches you need flipping first, and confirm with the checklist, rather than have the checklist telling you to flip on said switches, if that makes any sense. This is particularly important in more complex aircraft, such as twins/turboprops/jets, where there are much more things to consider, and where the process makes flying safer.

[Scott - A2A]

This is a disturbing video as one can't help but think of the people in that aircraft as they fought to recover. It's these messages that hit the gut that helps remind everyone the importance of following the checklists, even for a simple GA airplane. Something as simple as leaving carb heat on, not setting the trim, checking the freedom of controls, etc., can ultimately result in a fatal accident.

Over confidence "I don't need to follow the checklist..." and being in a hurry are the two major risks when preparing to fly any airplane. When I approach an aircraft and am in a hurry, red flags are going off in my head. It's a terrible combination. We are inconsistent beings. It is the checklist that keeps us grounded. And the quality of the checklist too.

To quote my first flight instructor, Deigo, he said, "Scott, real pilots don't sh&# without a checklist."

Scott.

[dacamp66]

a little more info on the crash:
Three people were killed on August 27, 1992 when a NewCal Aviation turbine-modified de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou they were aboard crashed on the airfield during climb-out after a short take-off from the airport. The aircraft nosed sharply up, arced right and nosed into the ground. Although there was no explosion, a fire started and consumed the aircraft's remains. The cause was listed as failure to deactivate the plane's gust-lock control in the cockpit, which was interlocked into the throttles when the plane was powered by radial piston engines. This feature was defeated in the plane's conversion to turboprop.[3] Despite having a statutory duty to investigate civil aviation occurrences that take place in or over Canada and any place under Canadian air traffic control the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has no record of this incident
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Indu ... rk_Airport
IMO, this shows how careful one should be, especially around nonstandard/modified aircraft. use the "flow system" but please crosscheck the critical/major systems against the checklist at a minimum folks, there are no do-overs in real life.

[AKar]

I've been trying to look up some further information of the accident but couldn't find anything from www unfortunately - I could swear that I've partly read some kind of report about this once, but it must have been a paper article or something.

Too bad that the Canadian TSB doesn't have any entry about this case - in my opinion, the Canadian aviation safety investigators very often make clearly the best human factors analysis of any safety board worldwide. I just wonder what made the Caribou crew to miss so important clue as restricted control movement.

-Esa

[DHenriques_]

I've been trying to look up some further information of the accident but couldn't find anything from www unfortunately - I could swear that I've partly read some kind of report about this once, but it must have been a paper article or something.

Too bad that the Canadian TSB doesn't have any entry about this case - in my opinion, the Canadian aviation safety investigators very often make clearly the best human factors analysis of any safety board worldwide. I just wonder what made the Caribou crew to miss so important clue as restricted control movement.

-Esa

A gust lock miss resulting in a fatal like this one is almost incomprehensible to believe, especially with an experienced military crew. The military does things by the numbers and considering the locks were in place on power up they would have had to have been missed BOTH on the pre-flight walk around AND during the after run up pre-take off controls checklist.
Accidents like this one are seldom the result of a single error but rather an accumulation of errors including both procedural and human factors inclusion.
It's a shame. We have a saying in the airshow business that might be pertinent here. In any accident involving the vertical plane we usually say that you kill yourself at the bottom as opposed to the top starting down.
They were dead at rotation.
Hopefully something was learned from this accident that was passed on and impressed on those who followed. Sometimes that's all you get from these things.
Dudley Henriques

[dacamp66]

iirc the gustlock lockout on the throttles was bypassed or removed when the aircraft was converted to turboprop.
edit: yup: Quote from website in above post: "The cause was listed as failure to deactivate the plane's gust-lock control in the cockpit, which was interlocked into the throttles when the plane was powered by radial piston engines. This feature was defeated in the plane's conversion to turboprop"
this means that the throttles could be moved EVEN WHEN THE GUST LOCK WAS ON.

[DHenriques_]

iirc the gustlock lockout on the throttles was bypassed or removed when the aircraft was converted to turboprop.
edit: yup: Quote from website in above post: "The cause was listed as failure to deactivate the plane's gust-lock control in the cockpit, which was interlocked into the throttles when the plane was powered by radial piston engines. This feature was defeated in the plane's conversion to turboprop"
this means that the throttles could be moved EVEN WHEN THE GUST LOCK WAS ON.

The usually present "chain of failures"
DH