Do you check your killer items just prior to takeoff?

[CpnCrunch]

Again, I'm surprised and confused that a pilot would admit to being so unconfident in their own ability to adhere correctly to a safety check prior to takeoff, and then institute another safety check of the same kind they acknowledge they're no good at as the best way to make up for their own performance deficit.

"I suck at checklists, so to make up for the fact that I suck at checklists, I'm going to add .... another checklist!"

Five times the rudder trim should have been checked. Five times it wasn't.

More checklists are not the answer.

I can only assume the pilot in that accident just didn't bother with checklists. That is bone-headed, but it's different from occasionally missing something. We can't prevent accidents from pilots who deliberately ignore checklists because they think they don't need them but clearly do.

[rookiepilot]

I flew for about seven years before I even learned what a written checklist was. Flying small aircraft and even single pilot IFR in light twins I never used a written check list but did everything with a flow check. In a simple aircraft, single pilot why would you use a cumbersome checklist when a flow check does it just as safely and is more efficient.

Amazing that.
More checklists aren't the answer......

[pelmet]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air ... light_1141

If only they listened to me and checked their killer items.

[TeePeeCreeper]

It is a good idea. The actual procedure... the last item on the Before Takeoff Checklist. With a full crew on board for a long flight, it would sound like this....

PM: "Departure Runway"
PF: "Runway 05 right verified"
PM: "Runway 05 right verified"
CM3: "Runway 05 right verified"
CM4: "Runway 05 right verified"
PM: "Before Takeoff Checklist complete"
PF: "Checklist complete"

Holy moley! Did I just read that right?!?

So a checklist is needed to cover ONE item before every entry on to a runway? This checklist is followed by no less than 4 crew members?

I’m curious, what type of aircraft do you fly in a 4 person crew environment that has those sorts of SOP’s?

I’m genuinely very curious...

TPC

[CpnCrunch]

I flew for about seven years before I even learned what a written checklist was. Flying small aircraft and even single pilot IFR in light twins I never used a written check list but did everything with a flow check. In a simple aircraft, single pilot why would you use a cumbersome checklist when a flow check does it just as safely and is more efficient.

Amazing that.
More checklists aren't the answer......

That's fine as far as it goes, but some things don't really fit into a flow, like switching fuel tanks or moving to x-feed before taxiing, controls free and correct, etc.

[rookiepilot]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air ... light_1141

If only they listened to me and checked their killer items.

Noted.....

From the actual report......

NTSB determined that the plane's failure to climb resulted from the flight crew's failure to deploy the flaps and slats as required by the pre-flight checklist.[1]:71

Based on the lack of warning sounds on the CVR, the NTSB also determined that the plane's take-off warning system (TOWS), designed to alert the crew if the engines are throttled to take-off power without the flaps and slats being correctly set, failed to alert the pilots

Crashed on take-off; improper take-off configuration due to pilot error and improper aircraft maintenance[

The NTSB investigated the relationship between crew performance and the events in the accident.[1]:73 FAA regulations require a sterile cockpit before takeoff, which means there is to be no conversation unrelated to the aircraft and pending flight. However, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) tapes recorded extensive nonessential conversation, including about the CVR itself, the crash of Continental Airlines Flight 1713, and the dating habits of the flight attendants. The CVR also showed that prior to takeoff, the flight crew was distracted by chatting with a flight attendant about the upcoming presidential election, drink mixes, and various other topics unrelated to the operation of the aircraft.

[CpnCrunch]

Noted.....

From the actual report......

NTSB determined that the plane's failure to climb resulted from the flight crew's failure to deploy the flaps and slats as required by the pre-flight checklist.[1]:71

Based on the lack of warning sounds on the CVR, the NTSB also determined that the plane's take-off warning system (TOWS), designed to alert the crew if the engines are throttled to take-off power without the flaps and slats being correctly set, failed to alert the pilots

Crashed on take-off; improper take-off configuration due to pilot error and improper aircraft maintenance[

The NTSB investigated the relationship between crew performance and the events in the accident.[1]:73 FAA regulations require a sterile cockpit before takeoff, which means there is to be no conversation unrelated to the aircraft and pending flight. However, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) tapes recorded extensive nonessential conversation, including about the CVR itself, the crash of Continental Airlines Flight 1713, and the dating habits of the flight attendants. The CVR also showed that prior to takeoff, the flight crew was distracted by chatting with a flight attendant about the upcoming presidential election, drink mixes, and various other topics unrelated to the operation of the aircraft.

Did you post a few comments back agreeing that flow can replace checklists, and now you agree that lack of a checklist caused a fatal accident?

[Big Pistons Forever]

For GA aircraft I would suggest that there are very few "killer" items that warrant a second final look after the pre-takeoff checklist is complete. Personally I just check that the engine controls are are set which generally means fully in or full forward, before pushing the throttle(s) up.

A more useful check IMO is to make sure the engine is making the expected power at the beginning of the takeoff run. I still find that most pilots flying fixed wing aircraft do not know what the required static RPM is and therefore have no way of verifying full power at the beginning of the takeoff run.

I am also surprised that many ( most ?) pilots flying aircraft with constant speed props do not check the MP for field baro before starting their engine at higher elevation airports.

[rookiepilot]

Noted.....

From the actual report......

NTSB determined that the plane's failure to climb resulted from the flight crew's failure to deploy the flaps and slats as required by the pre-flight checklist.[1]:71

Based on the lack of warning sounds on the CVR, the NTSB also determined that the plane's take-off warning system (TOWS), designed to alert the crew if the engines are throttled to take-off power without the flaps and slats being correctly set, failed to alert the pilots

Crashed on take-off; improper take-off configuration due to pilot error and improper aircraft maintenance[

The NTSB investigated the relationship between crew performance and the events in the accident.[1]:73 FAA regulations require a sterile cockpit before takeoff, which means there is to be no conversation unrelated to the aircraft and pending flight. However, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) tapes recorded extensive nonessential conversation, including about the CVR itself, the crash of Continental Airlines Flight 1713, and the dating habits of the flight attendants. The CVR also showed that prior to takeoff, the flight crew was distracted by chatting with a flight attendant about the upcoming presidential election, drink mixes, and various other topics unrelated to the operation of the aircraft.

Did you post a few comments back agreeing that flow can replace checklists, and now you agree that lack of a checklist caused a fatal accident?

Lack of any Checklist wasn't the primary cause of the above accident. There were checklists, that weren't followed, possibly the flight crew was distracted with the dating habits of the FA's.

Also noted:

One member of the safety board, Jim Burnett, dissented from the NTSB's probable cause statement. While Burnett concurred with the accident report's facts and findings, he believed that the actions of the FAA and Delta were direct causes of the accident and not merely contributing factors.[1]:96–97 Burnett's dissent proposed a probable cause statement that included the two probable causes named in the main report, while adding a third probable cause:[1]:99

"Also causal to the accident was the failure of Delta Air Lines' management to provide leadership and guidance to its flightcrews through its training and check airmen programs to promote and foster optimum cockpit management procedures, and the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration to correct known deficiencies in the training and check airmen programs of Delta Air Lines."

[CpnCrunch]

Checklist wasn't the primary cause of the above accident.

They would be alive if they had used it. Classic swiss cheese with lots of places this could have been prevented.

[rookiepilot]

Checklist wasn't the primary cause of the above accident.

They would be alive if they had used it. Classic swiss cheese with lots of places this could have been prevented.

To use a more modern (hypothetical) example:
If a pilot is likewise instagramming their takeoff with one hand while trying to prepare for and takeoff with the other, and then crashes, I doubt checklist usage of any kind is the primary issue.

[pelmet]

For GA aircraft I would suggest that there are very few "killer" items that warrant a second final look after the pre-takeoff checklist is complete. Personally I just check that the engine controls are are set which generally means fully in or full forward, before pushing the throttle(s) up.

A more useful check IMO is to make sure the engine is making the expected power at the beginning of the takeoff run. I still find that most pilots flying fixed wing aircraft do not know what the required static RPM is and therefore have no way of verifying full power at the beginning of the takeoff run.

I would suggest that you check the mags, fuel selector, trims, boost pump and flaps as well. Every one of them can result in an accident if set improperly, depending on aircraft type. One could ensure that the control stick/column moves as well. Sounds strange but look at the number of guys that crashed due to them being locked.

But I am glad that you agree that there are items "that warrant a second final look after the pre-takeoff checklist is complete".

[pelmet]

I am also surprised that many ( most ?) pilots flying aircraft with constant speed props do not check the MP for field baro before starting their engine at higher elevation airports.

Pretty much all of my flying on constant speed props has been at airports near sea level. For what reason do you check the MP and why only at higher elevation airports.

[photofly]

One could ensure that the control stick/column moves as well. Sounds strange but look at the number of guys that crashed due to them being locked.

Do you realize how dickish this makes you sound?

I'm actually laughing out loud that your best defence against taking off with the controls still locked is an ad-hoc pilot-invented procedure you may or may not carry out while lining up for takeoff. I cannot think of a better argument for removing pilots from the flight deck entirely. if this is the level of competency and self-analysis so-called professional pilots aspire to, give me computers flying airliners every day.

[pelmet]

One could ensure that the control stick/column moves as well. Sounds strange but look at the number of guys that crashed due to them being locked.

Do you realize how dickish this makes you sound?

I'm actually laughing out loud that your best defence against taking off with the controls still locked is an ad-hoc pilot-invented procedure you may or may not carry out while lining up for takeoff. I cannot think of a better argument for removing pilots from the flight deck entirely. if this is the level of competency and self-analysis so-called professional pilots aspire to, give me computers flying airliners every day.

I never said it was the best defence. Once again, you pretend I say something that is not true which really hurts what little credibility you have. The best defence may very well be a checklist. My procedure is a last line of defence.

Thanks for the dickish comment. I'd rather sound that way than all the non-dickish types that didn't use my technique and are dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YydkHy2P0dU

[photofly]

My procedure is a last line of defence.

A pilot lined up with the gust locks in, but he noticed it seconds before he applied takeoff power. Your takeaway may be "good for him for checking one last time" - but that's certainly not my response.

[rookiepilot]

My procedure is a last line of defence.

A pilot lined up with the gust locks in, but he noticed it seconds before he applied takeoff power. Your takeaway may be "good for him for checking one last time" - but that's certainly not my response.

Pelmet, why aren't you working for the TSB and / or NTSB as an analyst?

Based on your comments on the actual causes of accidents, you might be able to help them reengineer their entire approach.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

My procedure is a last line of defence.

A pilot lined up with the gust locks in, but he noticed it seconds before he applied takeoff power. Your takeaway may be "good for him for checking one last time" - but that's certainly not my response.

Yikes. And I thought forgetting to set the heading indicator before my runup last week was bad

[pelmet]

My procedure is a last line of defence.

A pilot lined up with the gust locks in, but he noticed it seconds before he applied takeoff power. Your takeaway may be "good for him for checking one last time" - but that's certainly not my response.

Pelmet, why aren't you working for the TSB and / or NTSB as an analyst?

Based on your comments on the actual causes of accidents, you might be able to help them reengineer their entire approach.

Irrelevant to the conversation. That being said, I already have a career and the government has hiring goals that can be read in this link.

https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/c ... e%20Act%20

So the investigators can read my stuff here. But prior to responding with another smartass remark, I have had a serious discussion with a TSB investigator by email about accident investigations and this is what he said about my posts on AvCanada...... "I've always respected and valued your input and opinion".

Perhaps just being friendly but it was still stated. Who knows......Maybe he would say the same to you based on the typical posts I have seen in our discussions.

[Big Pistons Forever]

For GA aircraft I would suggest that there are very few "killer" items that warrant a second final look after the pre-takeoff checklist is complete. Personally I just check that the engine controls are are set which generally means fully in or full forward, before pushing the throttle(s) up.

A more useful check IMO is to make sure the engine is making the expected power at the beginning of the takeoff run. I still find that most pilots flying fixed wing aircraft do not know what the required static RPM is and therefore have no way of verifying full power at the beginning of the takeoff run.

I would suggest that you check the mags, fuel selector, trims, boost pump and flaps as well. Every one of them can result in an accident if set improperly, depending on aircraft type. One could ensure that the control stick/column moves as well. Sounds strange but look at the number of guys that crashed due to them being locked.

But I am glad that you agree that there are items "that warrant a second final look after the pre-takeoff checklist is complete".

Don’t put words in my mouth. I will have checked the mags, fuel selector, trim boost, pump and flaps when I completed the pretakeoff check. I see no need for a check of the check. Checklist discipline will ensure those items are properly set before I line up.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am also surprised that many ( most ?) pilots flying aircraft with constant speed props do not check the MP for field baro before starting their engine at higher elevation airports.

Pretty much all of my flying on constant speed props has been at airports near sea level. For what reason do you check the MP and why only at higher elevation airports.

Because at sea level the MP gauge will show 29 to 30 inches. At a high elevation airports it will be lower. So if the before you start the engine the MP gauge shows 26 in then I would expect to see around 25 inches at full power ( slightly lower than field baro due to induction losses). If I did not see a solid 25 inches when I went to full throttle at the start of the takeoff, I would abort the takeoff

[pelmet]

For GA aircraft I would suggest that there are very few "killer" items that warrant a second final look after the pre-takeoff checklist is complete. Personally I just check that the engine controls are are set which generally means fully in or full forward, before pushing the throttle(s) up.

A more useful check IMO is to make sure the engine is making the expected power at the beginning of the takeoff run. I still find that most pilots flying fixed wing aircraft do not know what the required static RPM is and therefore have no way of verifying full power at the beginning of the takeoff run.

I would suggest that you check the mags, fuel selector, trims, boost pump and flaps as well. Every one of them can result in an accident if set improperly, depending on aircraft type. One could ensure that the control stick/column moves as well. Sounds strange but look at the number of guys that crashed due to them being locked.

But I am glad that you agree that there are items "that warrant a second final look after the pre-takeoff checklist is complete".

Don’t put words in my mouth. I will have checked the mags, fuel selector, trim boost, pump and flaps when I completed the pretakeoff check. I see no need for a check of the check. Checklist discipline will ensure those items are properly set before I line up.

No problem, I will only quote directly.....

Personally I just check that the engine controls are are set which generally means fully in or full forward, before pushing the throttle(s) up.

Seems like a good start to me. I would suggest adding more.

I will have checked the mags, fuel selector, trim boost, pump and flaps when I completed the pretakeoff check. I see no need for a check of the check. Checklist discipline will ensure those items are properly set before I line up.

Disciplined pilots sometimes make mistakes.

[pelmet]

I am also surprised that many ( most ?) pilots flying aircraft with constant speed props do not check the MP for field baro before starting their engine at higher elevation airports.

Pretty much all of my flying on constant speed props has been at airports near sea level. For what reason do you check the MP and why only at higher elevation airports.

Because at sea level the MP gauge will show 29 to 30 inches. At a high elevation airports it will be lower. So if the before you start the engine the MP gauge shows 26 in then I would expect to see around 25 inches at full power ( slightly lower than field baro due to induction losses). If I did not see a solid 25 inches when I went to full throttle at the start of the takeoff, I would abort the takeoff

It seems like a reasonable idea. But I am not sure why this emphasis on higher elevation airports. Wouldn't it be a good idea to check prior to start near sea level as well. If the guage is significantly off, it might be faulty.

[Big Pistons Forever]

No problem, I will only quote directly.....

Personally I just check that the engine controls are are set which generally means fully in or full forward, before pushing the throttle(s) up.

Seems like a good start to me. I would suggest adding more.

You could suggest adding more, The difference between you and me however is that I see no reason to add more. I find your arguments and examples wholly unconvincing.

[pelmet]

No problem, I will only quote directly.....

Personally I just check that the engine controls are are set which generally means fully in or full forward, before pushing the throttle(s) up.

Seems like a good start to me. I would suggest adding more.

You could suggest adding more, The difference between you and me however is that I see no reason to add more. I find your arguments and examples wholly unconvincing.

That is obvious, despite all the videos and accident reports.

Anyways, glad you check the mixture and carb heat after completing your pre-takeoff checklist. They are two items I check as well just before entering the runway.