Single pilot challenge-response

[carusoam]

Now…

Sometimes time makes a check list a bit rushed…  and unexpectedly, fog can appear between the ears… 

Take a look at how you handle a memorized check list…

Three gumps…

While covering the ground at 90kias…

how do you ‘confirm’ each step?

It is extra easy to say all the steps and skip doing the check… oops.

 

I’m a fan of verbal mediation… saying it out loud, things can sound funny when making mistakes… recognition of the mistake is very important …

 

Getting the first Gumps done before the traffic pattern allows for plenty of time to get it extra right…

The extra Mass of the LB typically has us spreading the steps out a ways…

 

PP thoughts only, not a CFI…

-a-

[anthonydesmet]

21 hours ago, slowflyin said:

After years of trying different methods, I found a simple solution that works great for me.   Right Side of the hour (minute hand on the right)- right tank, left side of the hour-left tank.   Previously I questioned whether or not I switched tanks.  Now I glance at my watch and quickly confirm.  

 

On 3/24/2022 at 11:44 PM, RLCarter said:

When I was working on my commercial ticket my CFI DRILLED the use of check list so deep in my mind it hurt….. the check list in both planes I fly are heavily modified (all manufacturers items plus a lot more)…. I say it out loud while placing my hand on the item and visually check it followed by a verbal verification it’s what I want/need. 

I use both these methods also.  Clock method keeps you from asking “did I switch that 10 minutes ago?” and if you want to modify your tank switch procedures that particular day then touch it and ask..”do I want to switch it?”….verbal challenge response for me helps make the checklist deliberate…..plus it makes my wife comfortable hearing me go through it.

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, hais said:

Curious why? 

Combination of things. From a single pilot human factors standpoint, I didn't see any advantage to challenge-response. In many cases I didn't think it enhanced anything and it allowed me the ability to group items.

This is my before takeoff check in an Ovation. Do you see any advantages to breaking up that first line into three challenge - response items or the need for large capital letters to remind me that the doors need to be CLOSED, the belts SECURE, and the windows CLOSED?  Or that the elevator and rudder trims need to be SET to something?

If you do, then that's what you do in yours. I just find this format far more usable and efficient for me. (And yes, I use the medical "PRN" as shorthand.) I can probably consolidate more with no loss of function.

 

[201er]

My SOP is to burn out the less full tank in cruise when I’m getting that low and save the last 20 gallons to be single tank operation. This ensures that when I’m most concerned, busy, and nervous (go around, destination airport gets closed, need to divert, very little fuel left), switching tanks is the one thing I no longer need to remember to do.

[M20F-1968]

23 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I recall an accident report where one of the specific findings was that the pilot had been trained to use a landing checklist by saying, looking at and touching the fuel valve.  Sure enough, they ended up running out of fuel on the go around because the pilot said, looked at and touched the fuel valve as they were trained--without changing it.

I'm not sure if this is solvable with checklists alone.   I've been toying around with only touching positional controls if I intend on changing them.  That way, I'm not in the habit of touching them without changing them, which might encourage not actually checking them.  After all, if every time you run the checklist you touch the mixture without changing it most of the time, you are building up muscle memory to NOT change it, even if it's actually in the wrong position.  Kind of like how now we're taught not to allow an alarm to continue.

@GeeBee mentioned the Japanese Bullet train, I recall watching a sequence where there were a lot of checklist, with saying and pointing.  I wonder if that might be the difference, where you conduct checklists with speech and physical gesture, but you only touch the control if you plan to change it?

 

The important thing is to engage the brain with all checklist activities.  Realize what you are checking, know that you have checked it by recognizing that you have performed the mental process required (rather than just going through the motions), and recognizing you have checked all the important items for the stage of flight you are entering.

John Breda

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, M20F-1968 said:

The important thing is to engage the brain with all checklist activities.  Realize what you are checking, know that you have checked it by recognizing that you have performed the mental process required (rather than just going through the motions), and recognizing you have checked all the important items for the stage of flight you are entering.

John Breda

I agree that's the goal of checklists, but the human brain has its known pitfalls, and repetition is one of them--if you do things the same way repeatedly, you will continue to do it the same way repeatedly.  And while we can try to be vigilant about complacency, it does seem like a recipe for complacency.  Clearly checklists and standardization work, while complacency can be mitigated in air carrier civil aviation, with its track record in safety, but I would argue that's

• hard to compare because of the profound nature of having a second pilot
• questionable since the safety rate varies across geopolitical and cultural regions

To say that the procedures and the safety process in air carrier civil aviation will work for people in general aviation I think is a lot of apples-to-oranges and wishful thinking, but it's hard to do research on GA pilots, because our missions are so diverse.

[Vance Harral]

While I realize this isn't practical for all pilots, the best thing I've ever done to minimize my own checklist errors, is to become a CFI and watch other pilots commit checklist errors.  This doesn't make me immune from errors, of course - sometimes exactly the same errors I observe and corrected in others.  But it has taught me a couple of things.

Fundamentally, there are only two types of checklist error, and they occur whether using paper, tablet, mnemonic, "flow", or whatever.  Type 1 is missing an item entirely.  Type 2 is non-performance of an item, even though you said and/or thought about it.

While everyone can commit Type 1 errors, low-time pilots are more prone, and hence I've seen a lot of them as an instructor.  I can say with high confidence that the more detailed the checklist, the more likely a pilot is to commit an error in using it.  A lot of low-time pilots - myself included a while back - get this understandable impression that the more detail a checklist has, the less likely one is to miss doing something important.  Counterintuitively, the opposite is true.  The more details - and therefore physically longer - a checklist is, the more likely the pilot is to miss something on it.  The propensity for error is multipled about 10x if the checklist is so long that the pilot has to flip pages, or even just move to a new column on the same page.  As an example, I give you the POH for the ubiquitous Cessna 172M.  This otherwise fine document contains a set of Normal Procedures checklists that are often copied and laminated for rental pilot usage, and all of the "Starting Engine", "Maximum Performance Takeoff", and "Before Landing" checklists are split across two pages (if you look at later Cessna POHs, the factory corrected this).  Some aftermarket checklists have similar splits; and lots of homegrown ones get this way because the well-intentioned author put so much stuff on them that individual sections won't fit in a single page or column.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone miss the last item on page/column 1 or the first item on page/column 2.  Even when the list is one page/column/screen/whatever, however, pilots are highly prone to miss something once the list gets much beyond a half dozen items or so.  I've tried teaching folks that they must keep their left thumb on the item they're performing to avoid skips, but this turns out to be impractical.  Electronic checklists try to mitigate this by requiring you to click an item to actually "check it off".  But it turns out this has problems too - anyone who's used a touchscreen device can tell you how easy it is to inadvertently click something you didn't mean to.

My conclusion based on these observations?  Simpler is better, almost to a fault.  Sure, you should turn on your landing light before takeoff, but the likelihood of that killing you is essentially zero compared to other truly critical pre-takeoff checklist items, like flight controls free and correct.  So maybe the landing light gets consolidated into "Lights PRN", or even not mentioned at all.  However you achieve it, simplify and consolidate.  Fewer items, with a focus on real killers.  Group noncritical items together the way midlifeflyer does above, e.g. taking off in an Ovation with an unlatched cabin door or open pilot vent window is not going to kill you unless you panic, so one item for all of them.  I maintain several checklists for airplanes I fly, and my rule is that all normal procedures must fit on 4.25" x 11" (half letter size cut lengthwise) card stock, with every pre-takeoff item on the front, and all takeoff/landing items on the back.  All emergency procedures must fit on a second 4.25" x 11" card, which I usually print on differently colored stock.  I happen to like this half-letter-size format, but that's not the important takeaway.  My point is to reduce and simplify - till it "hurts" - and forcing yourself into limited space is an effective way to do that.

As for Type 2 errors, this is a lot tougher nut to crack, and I really don't have a good answer.  But I'll say that over time, I'm coming to the same conclusion as midlifeflyer that "challenge and respond" may counterintuitively be less safe, because it makes one prone to Type 2 errors.  Again, I can't tell you how many times I've watched a pilot confidently say something like, "Carburetor heat OFF!" while staring at and in some cases even touching a carburetor heat control that is obviously set ON.  I actually do compose my checklists in a challenge/respond format, but the more refined they get, the less prescriptive they are, with many items saying AS REQUIRED rather than prescribing the "correct" setting.  Amongst students, this makes things go slower in the first few lessons, but I really do believe it reduces Type 2 errors in the long run.  Think about this for a minute: what if everything on your pre-takeoff challenge/respond checklist had a response of PRN?  Flight controls?  PRN.  Mixture?  PRN.  Lights?  PRN.  I think this forces you to actually think about what setting is appropriate, and set/verify it.  I don't know of any studies that formally support my thinking, but it's certainly the way I've started to lean over the years.

I'm just a hobby instructor, not in the class of a Don Kaye or midlifeflyer, so don't take my advice as gospel.  But if you want to know what causes checklist errors, suggest conferring with your favorite CFI on the types of errors they see on an everyday basis - especially amongst their more experienced students - and focus on eliminating those.

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

While I realize this isn't practical for all pilots, the best thing I've ever done to minimize my own checklist errors, is to become a CFI and watch other pilots commit checklist errors.  This doesn't make me immune from errors, of course - sometimes exactly the same errors I observe and corrected in others.  But it has taught me a couple of things.

Fundamentally, there are only two types of checklist error, and they occur whether using paper, tablet, mnemonic, "flow", or whatever.  Type 1 is missing an item entirely.  Type 2 is non-performance of an item, even though you said and/or thought about it.

While everyone can commit Type 1 errors, low-time pilots are more prone, and hence I've seen a lot of them as an instructor.  I can say with high confidence that the more detailed the checklist, the more likely a pilot is to commit an error in using it.  A lot of low-time pilots - myself included a while back - get this understandable impression that the more detail a checklist has, the less likely one is to miss doing something important.  Counterintuitively, the opposite is true.  The more details - and therefore physically longer - a checklist is, the more likely the pilot is to miss something on it.  The propensity for error is multipled about 10x if the checklist is so long that the pilot has to flip pages, or even just move to a new column on the same page.  As an example, I give you the POH for the ubiquitous Cessna 172M.  This otherwise fine document contains a set of Normal Procedures checklists that are often copied and laminated for rental pilot usage, and all of the "Starting Engine", "Maximum Performance Takeoff", and "Before Landing" checklists are split across two pages (if you look at later Cessna POHs, the factory corrected this).  Some aftermarket checklists have similar splits; and lots of homegrown ones get this way because the well-intentioned author put so much stuff on them that individual sections won't fit in a single page or column.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone miss the last item on page/column 1 or the first item on page/column 2.  Even when the list is one page/column/screen/whatever, however, pilots are highly prone to miss something once the list gets much beyond a half dozen items or so.  I've tried teaching folks that they must keep their left thumb on the item they're performing to avoid skips, but this turns out to be impractical.  Electronic checklists try to mitigate this by requiring you to click an item to actually "check it off".  But it turns out this has problems too - anyone who's used a touchscreen device can tell you how easy it is to inadvertently click something you didn't mean to.

My conclusion based on these observations?  Simpler is better, almost to a fault.  Sure, you should turn on your landing light before takeoff, but the likelihood of that killing you is essentially zero compared to other truly critical pre-takeoff checklist items, like flight controls free and correct.  So maybe the landing light gets consolidated into "Lights PRN", or even not mentioned at all.  However you achieve it, simplify and consolidate.  Fewer items, with a focus on real killers.  Group noncritical items together the way midlifeflyer does above, e.g. taking off in an Ovation with an unlatched cabin door or open pilot vent window is not going to kill you unless you panic, so one item for all of them.  I maintain several checklists for airplanes I fly, and my rule is that all normal procedures must fit on 4.25" x 11" (half letter size cut lengthwise) card stock, with every pre-takeoff item on the front, and all takeoff/landing items on the back.  All emergency procedures must fit on a second 4.25" x 11" card, which I usually print on differently colored stock.  I happen to like this half-letter-size format, but that's not the important takeaway.  My point is to reduce and simplify - till it "hurts" - and forcing yourself into limited space is an effective way to do that.

As for Type 2 errors, this is a lot tougher nut to crack, and I really don't have a good answer.  But I'll say that over time, I'm coming to the same conclusion as midlifeflyer that "challenge and respond" may counterintuitively be less safe, because it makes one prone to Type 2 errors.  Again, I can't tell you how many times I've watched a pilot confidently say something like, "Carburetor heat OFF!" while staring at and in some cases even touching a carburetor heat control that is obviously set ON.  I actually do compose my checklists in a challenge/respond format, but the more refined they get, the less prescriptive they are, with many items saying AS REQUIRED rather than prescribing the "correct" setting.  Amongst students, this makes things go slower in the first few lessons, but I really do believe it reduces Type 2 errors in the long run.  Think about this for a minute: what if everything on your pre-takeoff challenge/respond checklist had a response of PRN?  Flight controls?  PRN.  Mixture?  PRN.  Lights?  PRN.  I think this forces you to actually think about what setting is appropriate, and set/verify it.  I don't know of any studies that formally support my thinking, but it's certainly the way I've started to lean over the years.

I'm just a hobby instructor, not in the class of a Don Kaye or midlifeflyer, so don't take my advice as gospel.  But if you want to know what causes checklist errors, suggest conferring with your favorite CFI on the types of errors they see on an everyday basis - especially amongst their more experienced students - and focus on eliminating those.

Those are well-spoken thoughts about teaching.  Poor teachers focus on what to teach.  Good teacher focus on how to teach.  Great teachers focus on why to teach  

[Hank]

13 hours ago, carusoam said:

Take a look at how you handle a memorized check list…

Three gumps…

While covering the ground at 90kias…

how do you ‘confirm’ each step?

It is extra easy to say all the steps and skip doing the check… oops.

I’m a fan of verbal mediation… saying it out loud, things can sound funny when making mistakes… recognition of the mistake is very important …

Three GUMPS is easy: 

• Abeam desired point of landing, gear down, wait for thump, look for green light 
• Turn base, check airspeed, look for green light
• Turn final, confirm airspeed, check runway, adjust throttle and trim as needed, point at floor indicator and confirm that it's green.

Edited March 26, 2022 by Hank

[Fly Boomer]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

Abeam desired point of landing

 

[Joshua Blackh4t]

A few notes, from a pilot who had many different instructors and different plane.

Firstly, i use a sticky note to write my fuel on. That way I dont get halfway through a flight and forget which tank was fuller. 

Also, as someone posted earlier, why not use the lower tank until time says its almost empty (watch the fuel pressure) and land on the fuller knowing you have lovely margins. And that makes you think about your fuel switching so nothing is instinct.

I had one instructor who told me that check lists should literally be checking lists, not action lists. He told me to do everything from memory, then check it with a list. 

So I get everything set and ready for take off, then read the list and note that it has been done. Occasionally i'll pick up something  but generally minor. 

I've also included 'controls free' as part of runups. 

Pick what works for you. A friend of mine works better with comprehensive lists, I work better with actively thinking about evey aspect of the plane. 

[midlifeflyer]

20 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

While everyone can commit Type 1 errors, low-time pilots are more prone, and hence I've seen a lot of them as an instructor.  I can say with high confidence that the more detailed the checklist, the more likely a pilot is to commit an error in using it.

I had a conversation with the chief pilot of a flight school. He asked, "why don't pilots use checklists?" My answer, "Because most checklists suck." For the reason you say. An operations manual masquerading as a checklist is just begging to be ignored. So help me I saw one for a Cessna 152 with 

PITCH………………………..…….CRUISE ATTITUDE
ACCELERATE………..………….TO CRUISE SPEED

in the Cruise portion of the checklist.  Really? Clearly intended for student pilots, I think the only thing it teaches is "checklists are stupid"

20 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

I'm just a hobby instructor, not in the class of a Don Kaye or midlifeflyer,

Whoa! You got the wrong guy. I am and have always been a weekend warrior with instruction a part time - very part time - venture.  I'm not even particularly high time. as a pilot. If I have a special talent at all it's a combination of analysis and communication skills which makes me seem more expert than I am.  Example from my past - other lawyers used to come to me for advice on how to try their jury cases. I had been practicing 3 years and never had a jury trial. 

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

I had a conversation with the chief pilot of a flight school. He asked, "why don't pilots use checklists?" My answer, "Because most checklists suck." For the reason you say. An operations manual masquerading as a checklist is just begging to be ignored. So help me I saw one for a Cessna 152 with 

PITCH………………………..…….CRUISE ATTITUDE
ACCELERATE………..………….TO CRUISE SPEED

in the Cruise portion of the checklist.  Really? Clearly intended for student pilots, I think the only thing it teaches is "checklists are stupid"

Whoa! You got the wrong guy. I am and have always been a weekend warrior with instruction a part time - very part time - venture.  I'm not even particularly high time. as a pilot. If I have a special talent at all it's a combination of analysis and communication skills which makes me seem more expert than I am.  Example from my past - other lawyers used to come to me for advice on how to try their jury cases. I had been practicing 3 years and never had a jury trial. 

LOL, wasn't that like the lawyer from "A Few Good Men?"

Edited March 27, 2022 by jaylw314

[Pinecone]

On 3/26/2022 at 9:15 PM, Vance Harral said:

While I realize this isn't practical for all pilots, the best thing I've ever done to minimize my own checklist errors, is to become a CFI and watch other pilots commit checklist errors.  This doesn't make me immune from errors, of course - sometimes exactly the same errors I observe and corrected in others.  But it has taught me a couple of things.

Fundamentally, there are only two types of checklist error, and they occur whether using paper, tablet, mnemonic, "flow", or whatever.  Type 1 is missing an item entirely.  Type 2 is non-performance of an item, even though you said and/or thought about it.

While everyone can commit Type 1 errors, low-time pilots are more prone, and hence I've seen a lot of them as an instructor.  I can say with high confidence that the more detailed the checklist, the more likely a pilot is to commit an error in using it.  A lot of low-time pilots - myself included a while back - get this understandable impression that the more detail a checklist has, the less likely one is to miss doing something important.  Counterintuitively, the opposite is true.  The more details - and therefore physically longer - a checklist is, the more likely the pilot is to miss something on it.  The propensity for error is multipled about 10x if the checklist is so long that the pilot has to flip pages, or even just move to a new column on the same page.  As an example, I give you the POH for the ubiquitous Cessna 172M.  This otherwise fine document contains a set of Normal Procedures checklists that are often copied and laminated for rental pilot usage, and all of the "Starting Engine", "Maximum Performance Takeoff", and "Before Landing" checklists are split across two pages (if you look at later Cessna POHs, the factory corrected this).  Some aftermarket checklists have similar splits; and lots of homegrown ones get this way because the well-intentioned author put so much stuff on them that individual sections won't fit in a single page or column.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone miss the last item on page/column 1 or the first item on page/column 2.  Even when the list is one page/column/screen/whatever, however, pilots are highly prone to miss something once the list gets much beyond a half dozen items or so.  I've tried teaching folks that they must keep their left thumb on the item they're performing to avoid skips, but this turns out to be impractical.  Electronic checklists try to mitigate this by requiring you to click an item to actually "check it off".  But it turns out this has problems too - anyone who's used a touchscreen device can tell you how easy it is to inadvertently click something you didn't mean to.

My conclusion based on these observations?  Simpler is better, almost to a fault.  Sure, you should turn on your landing light before takeoff, but the likelihood of that killing you is essentially zero compared to other truly critical pre-takeoff checklist items, like flight controls free and correct.  So maybe the landing light gets consolidated into "Lights PRN", or even not mentioned at all.  However you achieve it, simplify and consolidate.  Fewer items, with a focus on real killers.  Group noncritical items together the way midlifeflyer does above, e.g. taking off in an Ovation with an unlatched cabin door or open pilot vent window is not going to kill you unless you panic, so one item for all of them.  I maintain several checklists for airplanes I fly, and my rule is that all normal procedures must fit on 4.25" x 11" (half letter size cut lengthwise) card stock, with every pre-takeoff item on the front, and all takeoff/landing items on the back.  All emergency procedures must fit on a second 4.25" x 11" card, which I usually print on differently colored stock.  I happen to like this half-letter-size format, but that's not the important takeaway.  My point is to reduce and simplify - till it "hurts" - and forcing yourself into limited space is an effective way to do that.

As for Type 2 errors, this is a lot tougher nut to crack, and I really don't have a good answer.  But I'll say that over time, I'm coming to the same conclusion as midlifeflyer that "challenge and respond" may counterintuitively be less safe, because it makes one prone to Type 2 errors.  Again, I can't tell you how many times I've watched a pilot confidently say something like, "Carburetor heat OFF!" while staring at and in some cases even touching a carburetor heat control that is obviously set ON.  I actually do compose my checklists in a challenge/respond format, but the more refined they get, the less prescriptive they are, with many items saying AS REQUIRED rather than prescribing the "correct" setting.  Amongst students, this makes things go slower in the first few lessons, but I really do believe it reduces Type 2 errors in the long run.  Think about this for a minute: what if everything on your pre-takeoff challenge/respond checklist had a response of PRN?  Flight controls?  PRN.  Mixture?  PRN.  Lights?  PRN.  I think this forces you to actually think about what setting is appropriate, and set/verify it.  I don't know of any studies that formally support my thinking, but it's certainly the way I've started to lean over the years.

I'm just a hobby instructor, not in the class of a Don Kaye or midlifeflyer, so don't take my advice as gospel.  But if you want to know what causes checklist errors, suggest conferring with your favorite CFI on the types of errors they see on an everyday basis - especially amongst their more experienced students - and focus on eliminating those.

 

I agree that simpler, but critical item checklists are better.  As are all on one page.

For your Type 2 errors, I tend to actually touch and move the control, it appropriate.  For Carb Heat Off, I touch and push the control to Off.   Same with mixture and throttle.

So, like another post stated, if I touch it, I move it.

And fuel tank selector, if I don't move it, I load it left and right to make sure it is in the detent and not partway between selections

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Pinecone

[Danb]

Keep a fuel log on my cross country flights, small ring tablet.

I do 4 columns. Fuel.L R in each I put beginning fuel, time, switch them, log time switched, amount used remaining in each tank. Confirming with fuel totalizer and actual gauge. I also log any change in CHT,TIT,EGT and fuel flow. Seems like a lot of work, it took longer to explain than actually do

My little tablet is the most used item during flight, numerous flight details, engine details, flight plan changes, frequencies, destination airport information listed.

Obviously all the details are on my IPAD, writing it down helps with my older mind, seems like extra work. Such as checklists all the tools are necessary to help have a safe flight.

                        

 

 

[Jocbay]

On 5/17/2022 at 2:59 AM, Pinecone said:

As for Type 2 errors, this is a lot tougher nut to crack, and I really don't have a good answer.  But I'll say that over time, I'm coming to the same conclusion as midlifeflyer that "challenge and respond" may counterintuitively be less safe, because it makes one prone to Type 2 errors.  Again, I can't tell you how many times I've watched a pilot confidently say something like, "Carburetor heat OFF!" while staring at and in some cases even touching a carburetor heat control that is obviously set ON.

I wonder if checklists that used questions rather than statements would if enlist a more thoughtful response/action?  Is the carb heat off? Is the fuel selector on the fuller tank?  Or better perhaps, is the fuel selector really on the one you want to use?  

What think?

[hais]

12 hours ago, Jocbay said:

I wonder if checklists that used questions rather than statements would if enlist a more thoughtful response/action?  Is the carb heat off? Is the fuel selector on the fuller tank?  Or better perhaps, is the fuel selector really on the one you want to use?  

What think?

I started to use question form. I noticed I'm slower now - which is a good thing. 

[midlifeflyer]

18 hours ago, Jocbay said:

I wonder if checklists that used questions rather than statements would if enlist a more thoughtful response/action?  Is the carb heat off? Is the fuel selector on the fuller tank?  Or better perhaps, is the fuel selector really on the one you want to use?  

What think?

I think that whatever gets you to use it consistently is the best format.

written  questions  like you suggest would be something that would push me away because brevity is my usability trigger.  I want a short reminder/confirmation. Even challenge-response is too long for me :D

But it may be a benefit to others. As could be other techniques, such as physical  flows that touch the switch/control.

 

[hais]

On 5/22/2022 at 3:55 AM, midlifeflyer said:

I think that whatever gets you to use it consistently is the best format.

written  questions  like you suggest would be something that would push me away because brevity is my usability trigger.  I want a short reminder/confirmation. Even challenge-response is too long for me

But it may be a benefit to others. As could be other techniques, such as physical  flows that touch the switch/control.

 

I watched lately Mentour Pilot's analysis on Malaysian 134 where 3 people missed removing pitot cover. The impression I got is : develop the habit to ask yourself what is different on this particular flight. 

[steingar]

I try and keep enough gas in the aircraft that it really doesn't matter which tank I'm on, but if it matters the first thing I do when I get in the aircraft is put the selector where I want it.  Before I put the key in, before I adjust the seat, before everything.  First thing, set it where I want it.

I usually try and switch tanks at the top of the descent.  I hate doing it in the pattern since I have to unbuckle the shoulder belt and reach down to do it, not things I want to do while low and slow potentially with other airplanes nearby.

[McMooney]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

I try and keep enough gas in the aircraft that it really doesn't matter which tank I'm on, but if it matters the first thing I do when I get in the aircraft is put the selector where I want it.  Before I put the key in, before I adjust the seat, before everything.  First thing, set it where I want it.

I usually try and switch tanks at the top of the descent.  I hate doing it in the pattern since I have to unbuckle the shoulder belt and reach down to do it, not things I want to do while low and slow potentially with other airplanes nearby.

I follow the poh procedure, 1hr tank1, empty tank2, land on remaining tank1.  fill up, if i don't have enough fuel.

I plan all my flights around this procedure.  max range including landing is planned to be 450 to 500 miles, no wind of course.

can't remember when last i even looked at the gauges.

[hais]

3 hours ago, McMooney said:

I follow the poh procedure, 1hr tank1, empty tank2, land on remaining tank1.  fill up, if i don't have enough fuel.

I plan all my flights around this procedure.  max range including landing is planned to be 450 to 500 miles, no wind of course.

can't remember when last i even looked at the gauges.

Beware though when you deviate from the usual procedure...that is the #1 lesson from this incident. (1) sound SOP (2) sound deviation from SOP (3) miss to catch an error during non-standard SOP

 

[cbarry]

I didn’t realize the bottom half of the tanks were for flying on?  I thought the bottom half were just to hold up the flight fuel—the upper half!  A wise old B25 pilot told me in my primary PPL  training to “fly on the top half of the tanks because there’s plenty else that can shorten your flight  that being concerned about running out of fuel should be last  on the list.”  Pretty conservative, but after all he was an OLD pilot!

[McMooney]

12 hours ago, hais said:

Beware though when you deviate from the usual procedure...that is the #1 lesson from this incident. (1) sound SOP (2) sound deviation from SOP (3) miss to catch an error during non-standard SOP

 

that's the thing, it's one of my routines, NEVER deviate.

if i have to fly 50 miles, i have 3 hours of fuel in the plane.  

if the destination is shut, I have all the fuel in the single tank to get somewhere safe.

 

[Hank]

5 hours ago, cbarry said:

I didn’t realize the bottom half of the tanks were for flying on?  I thought the bottom half were just to hold up the flight fuel—the upper half!  A wise old B25 pilot told me in my primary PPL  training to “fly on the top half of the tanks because there’s plenty else that can shorten your flight  that being concerned about running out of fuel should be last  on the list.”  Pretty conservative, but after all he was an OLD pilot!

Know your plane. Know your starting fuel and expected use.

I've taken my C out 4:45 twice, the first time due to deviations for ice with strong winds [the outbound flight was ~2:25]. The seat gets very uncomfortable and the body wants to move well before that time. But I landed both times and the fuel pump confirmed 41-42 gallons used, leaving 10 gallons or 1:08 remaining. The second time was three legs, because the fuel pump at my planned stop after leg #2 would not work [no fuel at first stop]. i also kept an eye on things, was familiar with where I was going, and had multiple choices to stop short for fuel if needed.

But I really prefer my flights to be shorter than that!