Teaching Flow vs. Checklist in GA

[EdFred]

When I retire from relying on flying to pay bills, I'll tell you the truth. Until then *adjusts the lighting on the grainy hostage video* : " i obediently. Use. The checklist all the time. I am happy and, well treated. The FAA is great success".

There are FOUR lights!

 

[sarangan]

I might get flak for saying this. A written checklist is a great for studying and reviewing, but I am not convinced it is operationally efficient. I've noticed that pilots who follow a written checklist tend to do it mechanically without thinking. For example, just the other day I asked my student after the run-up if he checked the carb heat, and he couldn't remember. He actually did it, but he couldn't remember because he followed the written words without mentally registering the action. I've noticed a similar pattern with ATC communications. Then, ATC said something like "squawk 1234 maintain at or above 3000". The student diligently started writing down, and then looked up at me and asked "what altitude did he say?". I am not saying written checklists should not be used, but it is more important to be listening and doing rather than reading and writing.

 

[jordane93]

I might get flak for saying this. A written checklist is a great for studying and reviewing, but I am not convinced it is operationally efficient. I've noticed that pilots who follow a written checklist tend to do it mechanically without thinking. For example, just the other day I asked my student after the run-up if he checked the carb heat, and he couldn't remember. He actually did it, but he couldn't remember because he followed the written words without mentally registering the action. I've noticed a similar pattern with ATC communications. Then, ATC said something like "squawk 1234 maintain at or above 3000". The student diligently started writing down, and then looked up at me and asked "what altitude did he say?". I am not saying written checklists should not be used, but it is more important to be listening and doing rather than reading and writing.

A checklist is only as good as the pilot that follows it. If you are reading it and not actually looking or verifying the switch position or gauge, it’s as if you never did it. Checklist discipline is very important.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I might get flak for saying this. A written checklist is a great for studying and reviewing, but I am not convinced it is operationally efficient. I've noticed that pilots who misuse a written checklist tend to do it mechanically without thinking. For example, just the other day I asked my student after the run-up if he checked the carb heat, and he couldn't remember. He actually did it, but he couldn't remember because he followed the written words without mentally registering the action. I've noticed a similar pattern with ATC communications. Then, ATC said something like "squawk 1234 maintain at or above 3000". The student inappropriately started writing down, and then looked up at me and asked "what altitude did he say?". I am not saying written checklists should not be used, but it is more important to be listening and doing rather than reading and writing.

FIFY.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So if the flow is the same, do you start at the bottom between the seats (what I typically do in Cessnas) and go:
Fuel selector - fuel shut off valve - (trim) mixture and the? to the left towards prop/enginge levers and then switches, or do you continue up from mixture to the avionics stack, and then across left to right?
I would greatly appreciate details about how you actually do it, since I struggle a bit on how to do it generic especially across cessnas and Pipers, where the fuel selector is located to the left (starting with fuel selector makes sense i think)

If you could elaborate on how you actually move the hand/eyes, you make my day here in cold rainy Scandinavia ;-)

Pretty much along the arrows in my photo.

For me, the idea of a generic flow (as opposed to a phase-specific flow) is to go through the airplane in a consistent systematic way so you consider each movable item. The switch you check might not even be in the checklist for that phase of flight. And, what does it matter whether you check "fuel selector in proper position" first or 6 seconds later?

All I'm really doing is checking each movable switch or control for proper position. I guess the one source of potential confusion is the throttle quadrant, but I think that's a bit of looking at the trees rather than the forest. I treat the throttle quadrant as a unit, to be checked the first time I get there.

No reason you use mine. You think you ought to start bottom center in a Cessna or way to the left in a Cherokee because you want to start fuel first, go for it. The goal isn't to do what I do. The goal is to create a consistent discipline you will use.

The other point is that there are things I exclude. I know people who include things such as avionics settings. I don't. Not right or wrong. Just a difference in technique.

 

[crash7]

There are FOUR lights!

Is it sad that it took me all of 0.4 seconds to get that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KCH2005]

Pretty much along the arrows in my photo.

For me, the idea of a generic flow (as opposed to a phase-specific flow) is to go through the airplane in a consistent systematic way so you consider each movable item. The switch you check might not even be in the checklist for that phase of flight. And, what does it matter whether you check "fuel selector in proper position" first or 6 seconds later?

All I'm really doing is checking each movable switch or control for proper position. I guess the one source of potential confusion is the throttle quadrant, but I think that's a bit of looking at the trees rather than the forest. I treat the throttle quadrant as a unit, to be checked the first time I get there.

No reason you use mine. You think you ought to start bottom center in a Cessna or way to the left in a Cherokee because you want to start fuel first, go for it. The goal isn't to do what I do. The goal is to create a consistent discipline you will use.

The other point is that there are things I exclude. I know people who include things such as avionics settings. I don't. Not right or wrong. Just a difference in technique.

Thanks a lot for the explanation.

I had the impression that a generic flow included engine gauges, fuel qty etc. but I like the simplicity of focusing on things that moves (knobs and switches), that also makes is easier to have a generic flow.

I have a bad habbit of "forgetting" to look at engine gauges in flight, and I hear a lot of people who where glad they discovered something early by looking regularly

Thanks for the inspiration

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks a lot for the explanation.

I had the impression that a generic flow included engine gauges, fuel qty etc. but I like the simplicity of focusing on things that moves (knobs and switches), that also makes is easier to have a generic flow.

Personally, I treat gauges and indicators in a combination of two ways. First, most of those knobs and switches have something to confirm.

Second, and more to your point, I think engine indicators are part of a normal periodic scan. The goal is to develop a habit of checking them so it becomes a natural part of your activity, just like you periodically glance at the gas gauge of your car while driving without consciously thinking about it.

That requires a certain degree of self-training. People have different ways of doing that. I know some folks think of that as part of a flow and that's absolutely fine if it gets the job done. An alternative to that is to think in terms of trigger events. Some are obvious. If you are flying a model in which switch tanks, that's obviously time to check the fuel gauge, so just check all the others. Tag it on to the end of the checklist or flow for each phase of flight. Flight following, glance at the gauges every time to change frequencies. Heck, put a sticky note on the panel as a prompt. Be creative.

 

[sarangan]

FIFY.

What I was trying to say was that reading and performing somehow seems to bypass the important step of mentally processing that information. It doesn't mean pilots are misuing the checklists. I've noticed the same happens when driving - if we use a GPS to find an address, chances are next time we won't be able to find that same address without a GPS. In other words, we follow the directions without mentally processing that information. It doesn't mean we are misusing the GPS.

 

[David Megginson]

What I was trying to say was that reading and performing somehow seems to bypass the important step of mentally processing that information. It doesn't mean pilots are misuing the checklists. I've noticed the same happens when driving - if we use a GPS to find an address, chances are next time we won't be able to find that same address without a GPS. In other words, we follow the directions without mentally processing that information. It doesn't mean we are misusing the GPS.

Still, that's a good point.

It's a bit like chasing the CDI needle or the magenta line when you're hand flying IFR, instead of picking a deliberate heading and just cross-checking the CDI regularly to see if the heading's keeping you on course.

I initially misused checklists as TODO lists, but I've been much happier after I started doing the flows first and then verifying afterwards with the checklist. I've found it's made me more consistent about checking things like oil pressure regularly while I'm in flight as well, because (as you mentioned) now I've actually thought about it rather than just mechanically following a list.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What I was trying to say was that reading and performing somehow seems to bypass the important step of mentally processing that information. It doesn't mean pilots are misuing the checklists.

Yes, actually, it does mean pilots are misusing checklists. If they’re not using them in a manner that achieves the desired effect, they are misusing them.

 

[midlifeflyer]

@KCH2005 This is a bit off-topic but deals a bit with the question you raise. It is a video which has been making the discussion rounds lately. It's about a pilot on a student solo cross country who suffers an engine failure and does a great job with the emergency landing. But if you check the fuel gauges, you'll find the reason for the engine failure.