Sweatin' the C-172...

[TwoTwoLeft]

I find it takes much longer to learn a flow by "read & do" (to a point were it could hinder learning the flow). There's no replacement for a thorough understanding of the systems and where all the fancy switches are located.

If you know what to do, you'll do it right the first time. Then back it up.

 

[Hacker15e]

Let's not stray too far from the point, and that was that different aircraft and different operational environments have different standards and requirements. Not only is that "okay", but it is also a necessity as well as a good thing. Each aircraft and environment has evolved their own operational procedures, standards, and techniques over time which work for that particular situation.

I wouldn't advocate bringing an all-memorized single-seat-fighter checklist execution philosophy to an airliner cockpit, and I likewise would not bring a verbal challenge-and-response, read-and-execute 121 airline philosophy into a single seat fast-mover. Using one instead of the other just isn't appropriate, nor operationally necessary/feasible in either environment. Yes, you must accomplish the items in the checklist to safely operate the aircraft, but how you do it is not uniform across the pantheon of aviation. This is why we have the difference between technique and procedure.

Obviously, there are bedrock safe practices that are universally applicable and appropriate no matter where you are, but checklist execution technique isn't one of 'em.

Again, these differences are why we can have 121 airlines and Alaska bush pilots and military fast-movers and GA "FLAPs" all safely operating, and each of them doing it differently.

 

[Roger Roger]

Alaska bush pilots safely operating, and each of them doing it differently.

Haven't you read anything seggy has ever posted? We don't operate safely.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

While that is your personal philosophy, that's not the USAF's checkride philosophy -- hence the difference in intensity between the two we're discussing. Your experience with the FSI 1900 checkride mirrors mine; several of the sim rides leading up to the checkride were item-for-item rehearsals of the checkride profile. I've never had that with a military checkride, either in the sim or the airplane.

Not arguing which philosophy is better for making a better/more prepared aviator, just noting that there are differences and that those differences, in my opinion, require differing levels of preparation, skill, and performance to pass.

I'm interested to hear @bunk22's experiences and what has led him to see some of the FAA sim checks as more challenging than his military experience. Obviously, military flying communities and services have sometimes significant cultural differences between them, so I'm speaking only from the perspective of the USAF fighter/trainer world and the (rapidly disappearing) MC-12 Liberty.

Here's my take:
I think the biggest difference is "body of work" versus "final exam". If a military pilot has a bad day, it is placed in its proper context within a larger body of work evaluated by peers and command. On the civilian side, a bad day coinciding with a check-ride feels like it has greater consequence. Also, in the military, the person doing the evaluation has a stake in the outcome. They are responsible for the evaluation AND the follow-up.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I find it takes much longer to learn a flow by "read & do" (to a point were it could hinder learning the flow). There's no replacement for a thorough understanding of the systems and where all the fancy switches are located.

If you know what to do, you'll do it right the first time. Then back it up.

WHY you are reaching up and hitting that switch is just as important as hitting it at the right time.

 

[z987k]

Teaching someone a massive flow and check list for an airplane that has around 3 critical switches forgets that were trying to teach them to fly, not read. There is so much to learn. Focusing on something that is irrelevant to the airplane you're in is spreading the focus too thin.
Also, if you've ever flown multiple aircraft at once youd know how much you have to change mindsets. Checklist usage becomes very important. .. for complex aircraft.

 

[ppragman]

Teaching someone a massive flow and check list for an airplane that has around 3 critical switches forgets that were trying to teach them to fly, not read. There is so much to learn. Focusing on something that is irrelevant to the airplane you're in is spreading the focus too thin.
Also, if you've ever flown multiple aircraft at once youd know how much you have to change mindsets. Checklist usage becomes very important. .. for complex aircraft.

Tell me about it, I'm 135 current in 3 types... I came up with a mnemonic that works for all of the airplanes I fly as a last second sanity check, but checklist, checklist, checklist! Without the checklist, I would have missed things that could have been alarming - especially when I might fly all 3 airplanes in a given day.

 

[Roger Roger]

Tell me about it, I'm 135 current in 3 types... I came up with a mnemonic that works for all of the airplanes I fly as a last second sanity check, but checklist, checklist, checklist! Without the checklist, I would have missed things that could have been alarming - especially when I might fly all 3 airplanes in a given day.

Oh please...if you forget anything alarming in the Caravan you have a glaring idiot light in your face. Shoot you can't even start the thing on one tank without it yelling at you.

Even the Navajo, as long as you remember to put the gear up and down and open the cowls before takeoff you're probably not going to break anything.

 

[ppragman]

Oh please...if you forget anything alarming in the Caravan you have a glaring idiot light in your face.

This is true of the caravan - especially with the G1000 caravan, that said, the PC12 and Navajos have gear and require more finesse.

Though I have found that after flying the Caravan for a few days I become more complacent in the other airplanes - gotta watch out for that...

 

[Roger Roger]

This is true of the caravan - especially with the G1000 caravan, that said, the PC12 and Navajos have gear and require more finesse.

Though I have found that after flying the Caravan for a few days I become more complacent in the other airplanes - gotta watch out for that...

Sleep deprived new dad syndrome.... Finding yourself at the hold short line with the airplane fully configured for takeoff with no memory of setting all the switches.

 

[ppragman]

Sleep deprived new dad syndrome.... Finding yourself at the hold short line with the airplane fully configured for takeoff with no memory of setting all the switches.

Yeah, no kidding - or my latest favorite, verifying I'm cleared to land three times because I can't remember if I flipped on the landing light out of habit, or because I was using it as a mnemonic.

Or giving the passenger briefing for the Navajo when you're in the Caravan...

Not that I'd know about anything like that - purely hypothetical...

 

[Roger Roger]

Yeah, no kidding - or my latest favorite, verifying I'm cleared to land three times because I can't remember if I flipped on the landing light out of habit, or because I was using it as a mnemonic.

Or giving the passenger briefing for the Navajo when you're in the Caravan...

Not that I'd know about anything like that - purely hypothetical...

"You gotta wear your seatbelt for the whole flight, there's, three, no, two, wait FOUR exits on this plane....who am I kidding, you're not paying attention and if we need to get out of this airplane I'm gonna have to do it."

As an aside, for both those aircraft I don't touch the lights between entering the runway and exiting it. I suppose if we start doing any night stuff I will.

 

[MikeD]

Sleep deprived new dad syndrome.... Finding yourself at the hold short line with the airplane fully configured for takeoff with no memory of setting all the switches.

Yeah, no kidding - or my latest favorite, verifying I'm cleared to land three times because I can't remember if I flipped on the landing light out of habit, or because I was using it as a mnemonic.

Or giving the passenger briefing for the Navajo when you're in the Caravan...

Not that I'd know about anything like that - purely hypothetical...

"You gotta wear your seatbelt for the whole flight, there's, three, no, two, wait FOUR exits on this plane....who am I kidding, you're not paying attention and if we need to get out of this airplane I'm gonna have to do it."

As an aside, for both those aircraft I don't touch the lights between entering the runway and exiting it. I suppose if we start doing any night stuff I will.

That stuff doesn't happen down in the lower 48, just so you know.

 

[Nark]

Haven't flown the jet in a while, but I can attest the
<----- doesn't hover.
Better yet, "Why are you stepping on the pedal so much in the turn?"


@ppragman & @Roger Roger
You guys and your upstate problems...

 

[Hacker15e]

I actually used an abbreviated checklist for flying the 172 on my BFR.

 

[bunk22]

I think a lot of it has to do with how prepared you are for the check ride. I've had a lot of civilian checkrides and I never once felt as prepared for them as with the military side. The level of performance demand (especially with GK and "airmanship") is higher I believe in the military... However the training programs are structured to prepare you for that.

The civilian world...outside of say 121, FSI, etc checks are just a mixed bag of expectations based loosely on the PTS with an equally mixed bag of training programs and instructors.

So I think it's all relative. There's just a larger delta in the civilian world.

I think this is well said as I haven't had to many civilian check rides and I will say for AWAC, the check ride was all over the place, not exactly even what we did in the preparation. It was very tough and I didn't feel that prepared. Now, my ATP/Check ride in the BE300, followed exactly what we did in training and it was still tough lol Part of that was not being allowed to make a mistake. I just did my yearly recheck and it was tough but more like a military type check ride.

When we were in flight school in the Navy or maybe AF, we did have expectations and lots of pressure to succeed for sure but as I recall, mistakes could be made as long as they were corrected (maybe IP dependent). Multiple mistakes would mean a failure but if a stud demonstrated an improving trend, a pass was sometimes given. I've given many check rides and if they performed poorly on a important maneuver, I would let him perform it again but executed from a different situation. Such as in the T-45, we would do a high alitude power loss approaching the field and lots of studs would dick it up but I could give it to him again, or two low altitude power losses, etc. Again, this could be Navy type training. Now at the boat, you either met the grade or didn't, no room for failure but that's a totally different environment that the civilian world doesn't do.

On the old grading system in the Navy, I received only one downed flight in flight school...through primary, intermediate and advanced. There was another time I absolutely deserved one but the instructor had been on a cross country and I demonstrated an improving trend so I passed my instrument check ride. I don't think that would have happened in the civilian world. Seemingly less forgiving during the check rides. Just my .02.

 

[z987k]

It depends on if the ride it for a certificate/rating/type. Those are 1 and done. On a recurrent you can bust a maneuver, the check airman re-trains it right now and you do it again to satisfaction, up to two times per ride I think. Of course they can chose not to do that. Up to the check airman.