This US AOPA article is very interesting. It makes the crucial point that on PRE-flight one is likely to be rushing, with passengers hanging around and getting bored, etc.
This ties in with it being much better to fly early in the day, not just to get usually better wx but also to end up with plenty of time to sort out a hotel etc.
The only comment I would make is that a post-flight inspection cannot substitute for a pre-flight one, because
I just want to get home after the flight! Ergo, there are pressures to do a quickie on the post-flight as well…
Would it be valid to state that if a pilot can bring up the discipline to do a post-flight inspection, he will also have the discipline to come in 15 minutes early for the pre-flight so that he doesn’t have to rush?
It would be interesting to know of accidents that would have been prevented with a more thorough pre-flight (to a reasonable degree). And if a post-flight inspection the flight before would have helped in those cases.
Peter wrote:
It makes the crucial point that on PRE-flight one is likely to be rushing, with passengers hanging around and getting bored, etc.
Waiting passengers are no reason to do a sloppy pre-flight inspection. Why not be at the airport an hour (or half hour if paperwork and flight-planning can be done from home or office) before the passengers? One never knows how long it will take to refuel and in case minor flaws are found during the pre-flight inspection there may even be time to fix them/get them fixed before the passengers will know about it.
Depending on the aircraft, there are certain items which only can be checked during a post-flight inspection, e.g. the engine oil level on the aircraft I fly at work. The aircraft manufacturer has published two checklists, one for the pre-flight, the other for the post-flight inspection and both need to be done on every flight.
And then there are certain things which should be checked post-flight simply by common sense. For example the wear of tyres. When you discover a worn tyre during pre-flight you will face a long delay until you can get it replaced. Checking that post-flight will give your maintenance operation all the time to your next flight to look after it.
Frankly, I – and most pax – are much more rushed post-flight than pre-flight. This tends to start with some physiological imperatives 
Pre flight is easy – just sit the pax in the FBO lounge (ok, I have that luxury in the US, not some hideous British Portacabin setup) while I check the airplane. Or, if traveling to the airport separately, I aim to be there half an hour before the pax.
The only thing I check post-flight is mag grounding and tires.
I do often a short post flight check. Tires, propeller, a short look on the engine and a walk around. It has been helpful in the past. In Australia we found the prop damaged by little stones, this year the windshield sealer has partly gone away in flight, last year one tire has to be changed, once I found small drops of oil after the flight, which was new. In any of this cases I would have realised it with the preflight inspection also, but it gave me more time to find a solution, find someone to help us and I was much more relaxed compared to if the same problems would have had to be solved immediately before the planed flight. So I do fully agree with the AOPA article.
This discovery on a preflight check
made me realise that one should do a post-flight check too, if one wants to avoid a load of hassle before the next flight!
In most cases, after a flight, one has time to do whatever stuff, whereas before a flight one is usually rushing. After all, this is why we nearly always refuel after landing.
From hard experience I learned that I won’t rush my pre-flights. If there’s too much pressure from my pax (that is often the case) I either stop the pressure or change plans. We typically sort it out such that I go alone to the plane on the day of a longer flight, do the pre-flight with all the time available and whenever all is fine I call my crew and they come just in time.
However, your picture gives a quite figurative example for doing post-flights as well. I do it like @eddsPeter I always check the airworthyness, check if something’s loose and “the overall picture”. But not more than say 5 minutes.
Post flight I always try to clean the dead insects of the leading edges and perspex. It takes longer to get rid of them if left for a while.
Whilst doing this I check various bolts and fastenings and tyres.
Put the pitot/static cover on and the stall warner blocker.
Unusual oil activity or exhaust soot marking eg flowing back from the engine cowl to under the cockpit are easily spotted and a note left for maintenance backed up by a call to the responsible person for maintenance.
All takes about 10minutes to 15m depending on insect mortality rate🙂
If one thinks about it… the only difference between preflight and postflight checking is checking for vandalism, sabotage, hangar damage.
Peter wrote:
This discovery on a preflight check
Sorry, not seeing what’s wrong. Is the wiper supposed to be stuck to the lower cylinder?
