Pilot_DAR wrote:
Has anyone here found, or known a pilot who has found, a defect with a Cessna 1xx flap during a preflight inspection? Just wondering…
In a sense yes, personally. I lowered flags normally (C172) for the walkaround, which went normally. They wouldn’t go up after engine start. The problem was traced to a contact at the flap motor actuator in the wing. Although I couldn’t relate the failure to the work performed, I had the good fortune to have it happen when picking up the plane after maintenance (that had nothing to do with the flaps and was nowhere near the flap motor), so a helping hand was near.
Here is a report.
http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-issues-checklist-warning
Maoraigh wrote:
I saw that the FAA had recently issued a reminder to use only the approved checklist.
Could you indicate where you saw that, and/or the source of the information?
I make my own check lists and use them, updating them occasionally when I see for based on experience. That said, I’m not aware that using any checklist is required by FAA. The POH (if it exists) has to have an approved checklist for reference and the POH had to be on board. I think that’s it.
Airborne_Again wrote:
As far as approval goes, in EASA-land you don’t have to use approved checklists for non-commercial operations with non-complex aircraft.
Fair enough, I accept that things may be different with different authorities. I also agree that older aircraft may have a genuine need to have an updated checklist, particularly for avionics. I’m sure that the original checklist for a DC-3 did not have “INS alignment” as a before takeoff check.
My theme is to remind new pilots that for most GA aircraft, there will be an approved checklist, and they are responsible to assure that is A reference for their checks. And, some well meaning checklists are double or more the original approved checklist, and that does not make them better. Checklists are better used as a certain way to check that actions have been correctly executed by a competent pilot, rather than a recipe to make up for rusty skills or memory. The competent pilot should use a checklist, but not depend upon it for the safe execution of the flight.
On the Aztec I always left the flaps down on the ground, because they were designed to be part of the walkway and there was no way I was going to pay the maintenance on that bit of foolery.
In the PA31 series it is a known fault that the flap runners crack. As the flaps are not connected with a torque tube (all flaps should be connected with a torque tube), it means that a broken flap runner will, in all likelihood result in asymmetric deployment, which could spoil the whole afternoon, so it is important to check them regularly. I check them when ground power is available, so about every second or third DI.
I saw that the FAA had recently issued a reminder to use only the approved checklist. For once I’m glad to be in EASAland.
My DGAC approved Aircraft Manual from 1960 lacks anything avionic related, including radio. It includes options never fitted. The manufacturer is long gone. I’ve copied the relevant parts, and added electrical info. and pre-flight clearance checks.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Checklists: The checklist in the flight manual, is the one, and only one, which is formally approved. They were developed as a part of (requirement of) the certification process. All other checklists are not approved. Could you explain to the insurance adjuster/AAIB, why you were flying the plane with reference to an unapproved checklist, when an approved one was available in the flight manual, which is required to be aboard?
We have been through this before in this thread.
To quote a reply to you from myself in that thread:
Airborne_Again wrote:
As far as approval goes, in EASA-land you don’t have to use approved checklists for non-commercial operations with non-complex aircraft. (And as you know, EASA means something entirely different with “complex” compared to the FAA.)AMC1 to NCO.GEN.105(c) does say that “The pilot-in-command should use the latest checklists provided by the manufacturer.” but you may use your own Alternate Means of Compliance without approval (NCO.GEN.101). The only hard requirement is that you should follow the operating procedures in the AFM (NCO.GEN.105(a)(3), referring to Basic Regulation, Annex IV, 1.b), but you can still do that using your own checklists
Why do so many still believe that approval = good? This is the same fallacy that compliance means quality or safety.
If you have nothing better, using the approved, compliant checklist is the best starting point.
And anyone saying – “just use the aircraft manufacturer’s checklist as in the AFM” has not seen what some of them look like in practice. A 1970’s or 1980’s twin can have them spread over the main AFM body and supplements, which may or may not apply to the aircraft in question. If after an accident, anyone asked me “why do you not use the checklist from the AFM, but your own” this is prob99 is completely irrelevant to the accident, and the answer will be “because it is better”.
Also, assembling the checklist and developing the flows when transitioning to a new aircraft is – for me – part of the learning, drives systems knowledge, and it takes several flights to get them right for a particular aircraft, which will probably have been modified a bit since the AFM was published last century.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
…an approval stamp…
The last time I saw a stamp on anything must be longer ago than the last time I saw a cheque being used as a method of payment. But I get the idea.
I would wonder why go to the effort
The checklists of e.g. a Piper Seminole are spread over two dozen pages in the flight manual which is the flimsiest possible printed product one can image with pages falling out after the third time of being used. Our flight school checklists (there are three actually: Preflight, Inflight and A&E – abnormal and emergency) on the other hand fit on an A5 sized platic card which you can clip to your kneeboard or sun shield. That alone is worth the effort of making them.
