Abbreviated & Expanded Checklists Multi Crew Environment

[AerocatS2A]

The "checklist" is not a "simplified" "Expanded Checklist".

Where I work it is exactly that. The expanded checklist is identical to the abbreviated checklist with the addition of explanatory notes. Maybe I'm missing your point or maybe you are confusing "expanded checklist" with the set of operating procedures that make up the company manuals and the FCOM.

[601]

Captain, you did not comply with the AFM, as required by the manufacturer's TC and CAR 138. Instead, you followed a document that was significantly different. As the person ultimately responsible for the aircraft, up to the time of the accident we are examining, why did you use this document?

I have posed this question to all and sundry with blank responses. I wonder where CAsA would stand if an FOI had required a company to develop the checklist and approved the checklist as part of the FCS that ended up as the centre of attention.

[Mimpe]

I understand the bird strike/ loss of thrust over NY city required a substantially more succinct checklist than the Airbus engineers had foreseen...

[LeadSled]

Where I work it is exactly that. The expanded checklist is identical to the abbreviated checklist with the addition of explanatory notes. Maybe I'm missing your point or maybe you are confusing "expanded checklist" with the set of operating procedures that make up the company manuals and the FCOM

Aerocat S2A,
I am not confusing anything, by the sound of it you are stuck with the nonsense CASA "requires" via the AOCM.

As I remarked previously, some of the older AFMs have very long winded so called "check lists" that are really procedures lists. Most CASA FOIs that I have come across have never developed beyond this point, they want procedures lists called checklists.

Unfortunately, the requirement to adhere to the AFM can be very restrictive, and to be "legally" safe ( limiting your exposure to liability) you must go through the process of TC holder/NAA approval if you want to modify/modernize such checklists.

When I say "more modern approach" I am referring to most FAR 25 (or equivalent) certified in about the last 30 years, where the list of "checklist" items is limited to vital actions only, and not a recheck of all the normal day to day procedural actions in normal operations.

I am reminded of the old saw: The things we do every day, we are expected to do by checklist, the things we will do once in a career, we are expected to do from memory"

At least, in recent years, we have got smarter there, as well, with very few non-normal procedures having extensive (if any) recall items.

Mention has been made to the ditching in the Hudson, I have no knowledge of Airbus manuals, but if they are anything like Boeing, there will be a preamble statement something like:

"This aircraft is designed to be flown by two suitably trained and experienced crew, Boeing does not present procedures for every possible combination of failures. Pilots should exercise their judgment under any particular circumstances. Read only items may be completed from memory at the direction of the PIC".

Even if it is not in Airbus manuals, this is what Captain Sullenberger did, in exercising his authority as PIC under FAR 91.3 ( have a look at the CASA Part 91 nonsense in draft, to see the difference)

As a matter of interest, FAA equivalent of CASR 138:
§91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft—

(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in §121.141(b); and

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by §21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

(c) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in accordance with part 45 of this chapter.

(d) Any person taking off or landing a helicopter certificated under part 29 of this chapter at a heliport constructed over water may make such momentary flight as is necessary for takeoff or landing through the prohibited range of the limiting height-speed envelope established for the helicopter if that flight through the prohibited range takes place over water on which a safe ditching can be accomplished and if the helicopter is amphibious or is equipped with floats or other emergency flotation gear adequate to accomplish a safe emergency ditching on open water.
------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, many GA aircraft are STCd versions of very old designs, many predating the FAA and the FARs, somebody mentioned early Kingairs, their AFMs are, in my opinion, very hard to deal with, and far from optimum, as far as risk minimization is concerned.


Tootle pip!!

[Horatio Leafblower]

I know CASA bashing is fashionable, but...

If you want the CASA good oil, ask GM at Tamworth for the run-down.

I am not sure if he is the SME for CASA on checklists but he is one of them, and not an Aero Club "shopping list" adherent.

His presentation on CASA's take on Checklists is much more "enlightened" than many here would appear to think and aligns with FSF and NASA literature on the matter.

[LeadSled]

Horatio,
Maybe you should ask Thornbird what he thinks of said gentleman in Tamworth. I don't doubt that the said gentleman will give you the "CASA good oil" --- that is the problem. We are in severe need of an oil change.
Read CAR 138 again!
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Leadie thank you, beat me to it. That lunatic will end up killing someone.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Leadsled and Thornbird,

I understand you old girls have your axes and you need to grind them but just a casual observation - you should seek professional help for your hate issues.



I find all interactions with all government agencies irritating and beauracratic and frustrating but to be blunt I find dealing with CASA generally, the local office particularly, and the bloke in question especially, much less irritating than the average govt dept and generally disposed to help wherever possible.

There are many things about CASA that need fixing or could be improved - agreed.

This is not a thread about CASA or one FOI, it is about checklists. If you think the "official" CASA take on checklists is the Aero Club-style "shopping list" you are wrong.

[Capn Bloggs]

I never cease to be amazed (and pleased) when I read stuff like Horatio's.

Puts a lot of the obvious ranting and raving from others into perspective.

[A37575]

Always remember when someone claims that CASA says this, or CASA says that, in every case he or she is talking about one CASA person or is generalising. In the case of an FOI it could be a former GA pilot with his own personal viewpoint and who has been given a type rating paid for by CASA which automatically makes him the local CASA "type specialist"

[LeadSled]

Always remember when someone claims that CASA says this, or CASA says that, in every case he or she is talking about one CASA person or is generalising. In the case of an FOI it could be a former GA pilot with his own personal viewpoint and who has been given a type rating paid for by CASA which automatically makes him the local CASA "type specialist"

B37575,
You have it in one, sound like you probably know one (of many) actual cases.

Horatio,
It is nothing to do with "hate" or any other emotive words, but all about what is all too common in CASA --- read the AAAA (and many other public) contributions to the ASRR.

In my opinion, what some at CASA are demanding (on top of the demanded violations of the Type Certificate/AFM and CAR 138) is just plain dangerous --- to anybody who has the background to understand why the risk is elevated.

Both in the case of Thornbird and myself, we have many years experience across a quite large number of types,(small, large and in between) under the jurisdiction of a number of NAA besides CASA, (and extensive qualifications beyond , say, an Australian ATPL) we have grown up with the development of what has transmogrified into modern flight deck operations ---- and understand why modern checklist are as they are.

Unfortunately, too many CASA employees have little or no background qualifications, much less years of experience, there is no CASA corporate memory, and unlike, say, the minimum qualifications for an FAA or UK CAA inspector. Too many are as described by B37575.

And that is why (in part) we are getting demands for changes to AFM standard operating procedures, including checklists, that are a serious threat to operational safety.

Sadly (in part) because there is no CASA corporate memory and reservoir of operational technical competence, they don't know what they don't know, but that does not inhibit them in exercising their delegations ---- producing quite unnecessary risks ---- an avoidable threat to safe outcomes.

Tootle pip!!

[601]

Read CAR 138 again

CAR 232 is more relevant to the topic. CAR 138 deals with the AFM.
Checklists, or more correctly, the Flight Check Systems are approved under CAR 232.

[Capn Bloggs]

You just cannot accept that an AFM may well explicitly say operators can modify the procedures as they see fit, will you?

Bloggs,
In short, no. Show me an AFM that says that !

In the literal legal meaning of the words you use, not some local constructive misinterpretation.

Fom my Boeing AFM:

"The operating procedures contained in this manual have been developed and recommended by the manufacturer and approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies for use in the operation of this aircraft. However these procedures are only for guidance in identifying acceptable operating procedures and are not to be considered mandatory or in any way construed as prohibiting an operator from developing their own equivalent procedures".

My FCOM says similarly:

"The 797 Flight Crew Operations Manual reflects the airplane description and operating recommendations approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. This does not mean that individual airlines may not publish manuals reflecting their own operating philosophies."

[VH-MLE]

Well said Bloggsie - and to you too Horatio,

I always have a bit of a laugh when LeadSled - Australia's very own FIGJAM, gets on here pontificating about all things aviation.

This is the guy who makes all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations about the non compliance with regulations of others, yet then proudly admits to doing the same himself - WTF??

He has absolutely no credibility in my opinion and it’s good to see others share a similar view!

Cheers.

VH-MLE

[LeadSled]

all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations about the non compliance with regulations of others, yet then proudly admits to doing the same himself

MLE,
Is that so --- quote just one example, please, or withdraw the scurrilous and defamatory statement..

Folks,
Re. CAR 232 and a few others, what you have not caught up with is the effect of the changes that brought CASR Parts 21-35 in mid 1998, and the repeal of the previous set of Australian certification regulations.

Since then, Australia issues a Type Acceptance Certificate, no longer carries out Australian certification, and a C.of A is issued against that Type Acceptance Certificate.

CASA has no power (despite what so many of you think, it would seem) to amend a foreign Type Certificate, and that includes all components of the Type Certificate, including the AFM. That is the intent of CASR Part 21 and CAR 138.

That this conflicts with (apparently) other CARs ---- So, what else is new??

Bloggs,
So, you are flying a 797, I must confess that is a type I haven't caught up with.

No such statement has appeared in any Boeing AFM I have used. I have never suggested that a company cannot have its own systems, but they must comply with the AFM, or any changes be agreed by the Type Certificate holder and the NAA that issued the TC.

As to your FCOM statement, if, in fact what you present is accurate, what you don't seem to understand is that that is not necessarily inconsistent with all I have said ------ but I don't expect you, -MLE or a few others to understand the nuances ------- it does NOT mean that you can change the AFM procedures, without Boeing or Airbus or whatever specific approval ( don't forget the Jetstar matter earlier referred -- nearly cost an aeroplane.).

That a few of you disagree with what I say, because it is different to what you have been taught,you are used to, what you have always done, or what CASA FOIs think and direct, matters not one jot.

I guess it will take a major damages action to assign liability for unapproved amendments to the AFM, contrary to what is reasonably clear black and white law.

I would have though that the Transair Lockhart River matter and the more recent PelAir Senate Inquiry would have shown, for those who didn't already know, that CASA collectively and individually, is not to crash (pun intended) hot on these issues.

Tootle pip!!

[VH-MLE]

OK LeadSled, here you are...

"MLE,
Is that so --- quote just one example, please, or withdraw the scurrilous and defamatory statement.." OK then - here is an extract of a post of yours dated 27th July 2013...

"What you mean is "will happen". I always used to start a clock, the average time to loss of control was around 30s, the best a little over 60s, always the "graduation test" after the initial 3h IF in those days of the Restricted PPL, no student ever failed to spiral out.

I am pleased ( having been accused of all sorts of illegality -- which was true, but now the statute of limitations is my friend) to make the claim that none of my students have even had an accident IFR when unqualified to fly IFR."

As I said, zero credibility and I rest my case...

Cheers.

VH-MLE

[Kharon]

Third umpire review please.

Guys, I just wonder here if "their own equivalent procedures" has a whiff of legal slight of hand?

However these procedures are only for guidance in identifying acceptable operating procedures and are not to be considered mandatory or in any way construed as prohibiting an operator from developing their own equivalent procedures".

You know the one – same as the CAAP – equivalent level of safety and all that. I've always had the notion that at least a stated 'no objection' from the type certificate holder was required to cover your arse – legally, should you wish or need to change the AFM 'procedures' and there is an incident which involves home made changes. I expect a manufacturer would be pretty quick off the 'not our fault' mark if things turned nasty. "No M'lud, whereas we can't stop the operator changing things, the operation was not conducted as per our recommended and we had nothing to do with that change; which failed to be 'equivalent' to our recommended"; etc. etc.

LS -"[CAR] 232 and a few others, what you have not caught up with is the effect of the changes that brought CASR Parts 21-35 in mid 1998, and the repeal of the previous set of Australian certification regulations.

LS – " [I have] never suggested that a company cannot have its own systems, but they must comply with the AFM, or any changes be agreed by the Type Certificate holder and the NAA that issued the TC.

It seems pretty close to the mark – as I read it – this also seems to tally with the AOCM section and as LS mentions; the intent of CASR 21 and CAR 138. But it's certainly typical of the legal techno babble which would keep a pack of lawyers knee deep in empties for a couple of years. Seems to get easier as the aircraft get bigger it's the 'middle weight' older type range which seem to create havoc, my favourite - the Metro 23 SAS checklist, to do the whole thing as per the AFM almost 90 separate elements are involved; this to establish that the system was working at the time the check was complete, offering no guarantee that it will function faultlessly if or when required. Other noted areas of 'conflict' : where certified single pilot aircraft are 'adapted' to multi crew, or where the TC holder expands 'a check' and then presents 'recommended' procedures which are translated into 'shopping lists'.

Not so bad for the 'heavies' with manufacturer assistance, but it's a real buggers muddle for "GA", especially as others (A37575) have mentioned, when the local type expert needs to be reminded to adjust the seat (ensure secure), put the straps on (nice and snug), stow the pen (after checking the ink level) etc. etc. One thing is for absolute certain, if you bend one and you are even suspected of being outside the AFM – there are no checklists published for manning a seat at an inquiry or hearing, even fewer allies. Be careful out there.

[Mach E Avelli]

Bloggsy has it right for Boeing. I know because I have had a checklist CASA approved that was slightly different in format to the standard Boeing one. The reason being we had to do mostly bleeds-off take-offs, whereas their standard checklist at the time assumed operators would be mostly bleeds on. For bleeds off, crews had to reference another book called 'Supplementary Normal Procedures'. In daily use this was a pita.

Also, with some bugsmashers and older Pommy air transport aircraft, the AFM does not set out checklists in any logical order. Rather it sets out procedures, system by system. How to turn the fuel on in the fuel system chapter; how to test the autopilot in the flight control chapter etc. Not practical in daily operations. Hence a SOP written somewhere to incorporate those various checks in a sensible order, culminating with the checklist item: 'cockpit preparation...complete.'

Over the years I have had my share of disagreements and arguments with CASA, but can say that with checklists, never had one rejected.

[LeadSled]

-MLE,
I will pay that one, but I doubt you will find any more.

In self justification, none of my many students has ever had an accident related to VMC into IMC or any similar weather related accident. Although two landed in paddocks, rather than risk deteriorating weather. Maybe, sometime, a breach of the law for the greater good can be justified.

Mach E,

Was the checklist you mention pre. or post the introduction of CASR 21? That makes a difference as far as the process is concerned, but is entirely consistent with all I have said about checklists. Thinking of roughly similar examples, where the Boeing answer to the change was "no objection", I would have thought that would have been the Boeing answer.in your case. As you have said, the operation was already covered in Supplementary Normal Procedures.

The whole point about modern checklists is that they are limited to vital action, they are not aid-memoirs for Normal Operating Procedures.

This is the whole basis of my complaints about what CASA is demanding (and it is not just one or two FOIs) in general aviation operations of small jets and turbo-props --- that virtually the whole of normal operating procedures, step by step, be incorporated in a "check and do" list, not "do and check" vital actions checklist.

If CASA tried that one on, with the major airlines, they would be shown the door.

In the case of one type, following the AFM, there was about ten checklist items to do touch and go circuits --- but the CASA demanded way (don't hold me to the exact number, I would have to go and count them) was about 57 or 58 items ---- completely unmanageable in the course of doing a circuit, completely contrary to the AFM ----- and being head down for most of the circuit is not the way to go.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Kharon mentions a good example with the daily SAS check in the Metro 23, CASA wanted the whole thing done as a two pilot "challenge and reply" procedure from a "check and do" checklist. Completely unmanageable and unnecessary, and not called for (in this form) in the AFM, although Metro AFMs are fairly ugly examples of older AFMs.
Some Kingair manuals are not much better. -8/Q300/400 manuals are a reasonable example of a modern manual for a turbo-prop, with Normal Operating checklist limited to vital actions.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Ledslead

The whole point about modern checklists is that they are limited to vital action, they are not aid-memoirs for Normal Operating Procedures.

More to do with more-automated systems in modern airliners not requiring any actions as opposed to "modernising" the checklists to remove superfluous normal operating procedures. After all, that's what a checklist is for; to check that the things that need to be done have indeed been done.