Dear Community,
in the last days, I started digging a bit deeper into the field of checklists. I wanted to create my own ones because I wasnt really satisfied with some of the aircrafts Im regularly flying with. The first thing Ive found out, that there are near to none useful checklist templates available on the Internet [at least after doing some hours of Googling].
What I found instead is some very helpful information about usability and design of checklists. The following three documents are especially remarkable in my opinion [sorted in the order of interestingness]:
- FAA: Human Performance Considerations in the use and design of aircraft checklists
- NASA: On the typography of flight-deck documentation
- NASA: Human Factors of Flight-Deck Checklists: The Normal Checklist [or the short excerpt paper Cockpit Checklists: Concepts, Design and Use]
Especially the paper about typography is really interesting. Basically none of the checklists Ive ever seen meets their criteria [which are not very hard to fulfill].
Due to the lack of freely available templates, I decided to create one myself using InDesign for a Cessna C182T RG. I tried to incorporate the following criteria into it:
- Using only one sans serif typeface throughout the whole checklist [Gill Sans]
- Easily readable font [11pt]
- Regular lower case writing [NO CAPS] with responses in bold [easier to read/scan]
- Separating challenge/response with dots [«A connecting line between the challenge and the required response is an important item in checklist design [Challenge.Response].»]
- Numerating the items as an additional Where-was-I-helper
- Bold face for the first letter of each item, makes it easier to keep track [inspired by the Bionic Reading method]
- Having both follow-up checklists [in boxes] and read-and-do checklists [without a box]
- Clear contrast default is black-on-white, abnormal is black-on-orange, emergency is white-on-dark-red [recommended colors from the NASA paper]
- Clear results WHAT is going to happen not just CHECKED or SET, but rather Magnetos: 175 max drop/50 diff or Carb Heat: RPM drop in the Run Up checklist or instead of Flight instruments: Checked well have Compass / HI / TC: Turning [«Checklist responses should portray the desired status or the value of the item being considered, not just checked or set.» // «Terms such as Tested, Checked, and Set are acceptable terms only when they are clearly defined and consistently used.»]
- Clear movement-oriented items, e.g. rather than Mixture: Rich well have Mixture: Full Forward.
- No ranges of values [Best Glide: 84-72kt], only ONE value
- Arrangement of the items with a clear movement flow in the cockpit [right > left, up > down] e.g. at RunUp: Magnetos > Suction > Carb Heat > Prop > Throttle from left to right [«Sequencing of checklist items should follow the geographical organization of the items in the cockpit, and be performed in a logical flow.»]
- All In-Flight-Items on one page [After Takeoff, Cruise, Approach, Final Approach] and marked as inverse
- Includes a written confirmation at the end of each checklist, e.g. after the After-Takeoff-Checklist: After Take Off Checklist Completed, which youre supposed to read out loud, which helps our brain to mentally finish this task and put it aside [The completion call of a task-checklist should be written as the last item on the checklist, allowing all crew members to move mentally from the checklist to other activities with the assurance that the task-checklist has been completed.]
Also Im trying to adapt the japanese Shisa Kanko method [Wikipedia] saw this in japan: when a train is departing from a station, the security personell doesnt just say clear platform, they extensively point with their whole arm along the platform. It looks very funny first and tourists make fun of it, but after introducing, they managed to bring down their error rate by 85%. Whos laughing now? The paper says: «The use of hands and fingers to touch, or point to, appropriate controls, switches, and displays while conducting the checklist is recommended.»
Youll find my checklist as a PDF preview here: cdn.thomas-witt.com/checklist-template.pdf
The InDesign Source File is located here: cdn.thomas-witt.com/checklist-template.indd [Its released under a Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-SA 4.0]
I hope youll find it useful comments and suggestions for improvements are highly welcome.
It is worthwhile to note that an FAA approved checklist is provided for many aircraft, certainly including the 182RG its in the POH. That approved checklist has been found to meet all of the certification requirements at the time the plane was manufactured. I agree that there may be merit in adding items which are directly relevant to that plane [like avionics not available/installed on the factory plane, or a landing gear system change]. This should be done as an approval activity associated with the installation of the equipment. Otherwise I resist the idea of non approved checklists. Were I to be presented with a non approved checklist, I would set it aside in favour of the approved checklist in the flight manual/POH.
If I were to have an incident/accident while flying an airplane, and that event were to be traced to my using a non approved checklist, Id have a really difficult time explaining why I had decided to not use the approved checklist [procedures], in favour of a home made one. Perhaps, if I were to demonstrate that the home made one was an exact reproduction of the original Cessna checklist, other than for the addition of an avionic item, I might be able to justify it, but I really would rather not take that chance, and go to that effort, if an approved checklist is available. Missing avionics is rarely a safety item, its just embarrassing.
A checklist is not an instruction sheet on how to fly the plane, it is a mechanism a pilot may use to assure that they are flying the plane as the manufacturer intended. It need not, and should not contain expected outcomes of the items a competent pilot should already know these! A very wordy checklist will either not be properly used, or if properly used, will end up being misused, when it is so long that the pilot cannot complete a section in one session, and has to keep starting again from the beginning, when interrupted by a flying task.
My FAR Part 23 certified amphibious flying boat has an FAA approved [and required] checklist, which, for land and water operation, is a total of 31 items long, and is a total of
87 words, start to finish. This includes landing gear operation, water rudder, and constant speed propeller operation. Its short such that it is a placard on the instrument panel. The portion of the checklist which is used in flight is less than half of this length.
I consider the Cessna checklists to err to the wordy side too, though not to the point of being a problem. I just wonder if I need a checklist item which reads: Elevator control LIFT NOSEWHEEL at 50 KIAS. Ah, yeah, if I want to fly, Im going to have to use the elevator to lift the nosewheel. The indicated airspeed for lifting the nosewheel may be 50 KIAS, or a slower speed, in accordance with Cessna procedures, so making it a checklist item is silly checklist runaway!
A checklist I wrote, and had approved, for a modified 182 [27 STC mods installed] was a total of 169 words for land operation, or 142 words for water operation. This includes amphibious landing gear, glass cockpit, and reversing propeller, among other systems not common to the 182. The authority and I agreed on the checklist contents, and they met all of the regulatory requirements, more words were not only not required, but actually non compliant. Obviously, the standard 182 landplane checklist would not cover a highly modified 182 amphibian, and you know what, my approved 182 amphibian checklist, is less than half the length [and item count] as Cessnas checklist for the 182 landplane! So I guess that the FAA was looking for more words back in the day when the 182 was approved, than the authority is now! I think that they have learned that long checklists are more a detriment to safe flying, rather than a benefit.
So, a few specific thoughts about the checklist you created: For manual gear extension, autopilot on? Cessna does not say that [the plane may not be equipped with an auto pilot] I have no recollection of any retractable I have ever flown specifying autopilot on for a gear emergency, though perhaps there is one. Can a manual extension be safely accomplished with the autopilot off? I assure you, yes. The last thing I want during a landing gear problem, is to have yet another system to monitor, which could also be malfunctioning. Your checklist says gear and pump circuit breakers in for a manual extension. The Cessna expanded procedure specifies conditions in which the breaker should be pulled. If a pilot follows your checklist, they may be operating the plane counter to what Cessna has stated in their expanded procedures. Engine fire on the ground: your checklist states twice [8 & 10] to Keep on the ignition, followed by 13 Leave aircraft ASAP. Cessna says: Ignition switch off in this circumstance. A pilot following your checklist, and in the rush to get it done with smoke flowing, misses only one item on your checklist: mixture to idle cut off. So, everyones out of the plane, it will most likely be ground handled next, and its condition, as left by the pilot [who missed only one item] is: throttle fully open, mixture rich [by oversight], and mags [ignition on]. If someone turns the prop by hand, and the engine starts, that plane is going to do a lot of damage before the carb is empty of fuel. Cessnas procedure is mags off, to very greatly reduce the chance of an errant start by handling the prop. You use the term magnetos associated with continue cranking. The starter starts, the magnetos are the ignition source. Magnetos dont crank. Then later, the term ignition is exchanged for the term magnetos. Using two terms for the same thing, or using the wrong term for something leads to confusion. Your electrical fire in flight section deviates considerably from Cessnas procedure.
I have not read all of the checklist you have produced, so there could be other comments. But, as an experienced 182RG pilot, I would stow your checklist, and use the approved one in the POH. In doing so, I would assure that I have met the expectation to operate the aircraft in accordance with approved procedures. Sorry to seem rough on your checklist effort, but you asked. And, it is my job to evaluate and approve, or submit for approval, aircraft modifications, including flight manual supplements and checklists. I take this stuff pretty seriously, and follow guidance and and experience provided to me by the regulator.
I encourage checklists to be approved, thus most easy is to use the one provided with the airplane flight manual/POH. If you think it is missing a safety item [perhaps because of a modification incorporated], thats certainly worth discussion with the installer or the authority. If your checklist needs to include one or two items unique to the airport environment [like: obtain clearance prior to contacting ground], sure, include that, but otherwise copy the Cessna, or other approved checklist word for word.
I very much agree with the read out loud element. Yes! I teach this unrelentingly for amphibian flying, as wheels up landings are required, and there is no warning system for landing gear position in many amphibians.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
If I were to have an incident/accident while flying an airplane, and that event were to be traced to my using a non approved checklist, Id have a really difficult time explaining why I had decided to not use the approved checklist [procedures], in favour of a home made one.
That the POH checklist was not fit for purpose? The Cessna checklists/procedures for the 172 features such wonderful items as TOUCH DOWN MAIN WHEELS FIRST.
The main reason for me to make my own checklists was that I fly different aircraft models and want [as long as it is compatible with safe aircraft operation] the checklist items to come in the same order. Obviously I dont change the contents of the procedures in the POH as in your example about gear retraction.
The checklists/procedures in the POH may be approved, but my understanding is that the only part of the POH which regulations say you must follow is the limitations section. AMC1 to NCO.GEN.105[c] does say that you should use the manufacturers checklists, on the other hand part-NCO also allows the operator to make its own AltMOCs.
Also, there might not be a useable manufacturers checklist if the aircraft has been modified. I say useable because even if STCs etc come with their own checklists in the POH supplement there will be several checklists that need to be stitched together and suddenly you have your own checklists anyway.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
So I guess that the FAA was looking for more words back in the day when the 182 was approved, than the authority is now!
So if you have an older aircraft should you still use a checklist that everyone now agrees should have been written in a different manner?
Compare with leaning instructions in old and more recent POHs. They are quite different, still there have been no changes to engines or fuel systems to motivate such differences.
I made my own check list for the TB10, largely based on the POH.
For the PA17 I dont use one. It doesnt have most of the items that typically feature on a check list so I just do a sweep left to right across the cockpit. There is certainly no official check list.
I have noted that most GA flyers tend to use check lists as a task list [i.e. they actually do the items as they work through it] as opposed to the airline method which seems to be checking off [hence the word checklist] items that are PROB99 already set as required. Perhaps the reason for this is the piston engine power checks if you include these actions then it almost by definition becomes a task list rather than a check list, and once doing one part of it this way you might as well do it all this way?
Pilot_DAR wrote:
I encourage checklists to be approved, thus most easy is to use the one provided with the airplane flight manual/POH.
Thanks for your input on certain items on the list [regarding magentos/ignition, etc.].
Unfortunately, actually I might have expressed myself wrong: this checklist wasnt soo much about the actual 182RG contents in it just take that more as an example. It could have also contained Lorem Ipsum. It was more about the design and structure. I think everybody has to decide on their own whether they want to go with an 1977s checklist for a 172/182/ or with an own, updated version [and have that even approved]. Apart from that, the papers show clearly that the way checklists have been designed in the past clearly led to accidents.
Thank you Thomas for a great post on a relevant topic.
I dont understand how an experienced pilot such as Pilot_DAR fails to understand the human factors behind checklist design and doesnt recognize that the aircraft manufacturers are not necessarily the most well-versed people regarding this topic. Especially if we talk about older aircraft. A manufacturer in the 1970s did not have access to the knowledge posted by Thomas in his OP. So even if the content of the approved original checklist in the POH stays the same [which is not always the case], the design will most definitely and without exception be outdated!
Thus the effort in the OP is commendable!
When I learned to fly many pilots around me flew without checklists.
I was never comfortable with that and always used one.
After a year or so on the same aircraft I too became familiar enough to not require a checklist but recognised quite quickly that I definitely was capable of a cock-up.
So I decided my safest option was a cut down essential items checklist incorporating everything in a way that I wouldnt start to second guess the list and use it reliably.
Human factors taken into consideration included specifically having 1 item per line and a careful use of block capitals.
I belive this inreased my overall safety significantly.
I use an aftermarket Cessna list now but again am picking through it where stuff isnt relevant.
How many sections cover the same ground. This is where you could begin to skim and miss something.
I shall be creating my own version again soon.