Throw out that checklist
Lynne Miller
The method I use when I fly (Cessna Citation VII) is a flow check. If
you have a good flowcheck for the various phases of flight, I feel a
checklist is not necessary. I am curious what others do?
Thanks!
Peter R.
> How many of you actually use a checklist?
I use a checklist for preflight, engine start, and run-up, but use a flow
check for taking the runway, in-range check (landing), departing the
runway/taxiing to the ramp, and shutdown.
--
Peter
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Tim Bengtson
> The method I use when I fly (Cessna Citation VII) is a flow check. If
> you have a good flowcheck for the various phases of flight, I feel a
> checklist is not necessary. I am curious what others do?
How well do you think you could remember your flowcheck with the cockpit
filled with smoke? I would always at least keep the written checklists
handy just on the presumption that I would forget things under the
stress of a major emergency.
Tim
Tim Bengtson
> some stuff
Oh, crap. Have I just been sucked in by a trolling flight-simmer?
Tim
Dudley Henriques
"Lynne Miller" <mill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4b5317f.03061...@posting.google.com...
A flow check is fine, and a good one should be custom designed by every
pilot for the SPECIFIC aircraft involved, but like any other check tool,
flow checks are subject to distraction. I highly recommend that flow checks
NOT be used to replace written checklists, but rather as a post action
supplement to be used in CONJUNCTION with a written checklist. That means as
a cross check ONLY!!!
I can't stress this enough!!! NOTHING....but NOTHING should replace the
written checklist for an airplane.
The correct way to view this issue is as follows;
Do a complete study and review of all written checklists pertaining to your
specific aircraft. One of two possible scenarios will be present.
Either the written checklist is pre-flowed as it should be, or items are out
of normal flow sequence. The first case scenario is obvious. You leave the
checklist alone and USE IT EVERY TIME YOU FLY as a WRITTEN checklist.
The second case scenario would dictate a noticed change in the natural flow
pattern for your particular aircraft that isn't reflected in the flow of the
checklist. In that case, you alter the written checklist to reflect the more
efficient flow, (addition of new equipment or change of panel layout are
good examples of this). In both of these scenarios, the WRITTEN checklist
should be used as a (read it; find it; touch it; action required ). NEVER
use a flow check without a written checklist.
It's perfectly acceptable AFTER a written checklist has been accomplished,
to follow up with a final flow safety check as backup just before power up.
For example, I always used, regardless of my prior checks, as I was taking
the active, "All good pilots must take off fine check" Every pilot should
have one of these "personal final checks....and many others exist. Mine was
quite simple, and worked quite well.
All; altimeter
Good; Gas
Pilots; Prop (s)
Must; Mixture
Take: Trim
Off; Oil Press/temps
Fine; Flaps
Check; Controls
This final check done with a touch, read, and verify pattern kept me alive
in over 70 different types of airplanes through my career ranging from J3's
up to the highest performance aircraft in the world.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
Steven P. McNicoll
>
Not me.
>
> The method I use when I fly (Cessna Citation VII) is a flow check. If
> you have a good flowcheck for the various phases of flight, I feel a
> checklist is not necessary. I am curious what others do?
>
I just rely on my memory to hit each item.
Dudley Henriques
"Tim Bengtson" <tim...@us.nospam.ibm.wellmaybe.com> wrote in message
news:3EF20A...@us.nospam.ibm.wellmaybe.com...
I thought the same thing, as in my entire career in aviation I've never met
ANYONE who has reached the level required to fly a Citation who would even
think of not using a written checklist.
Be that as it may. This is a student newsgroup. Students are on the low end
of the learning curve. It's best to address this kind of post head on and
post the right answer directed past the initial poster and at those who
might have been "impressed" by this information. You just never know, the
newsgroup scene being what it is today.
Jim
--
Jim Burns III
jbu...@nospamuniontel.net
Remove "nospam" to reply
"Tim Bengtson" <tim...@us.nospam.ibm.wellmaybe.com> wrote in message
news:3EF20A...@us.nospam.ibm.wellmaybe.com...
Jim
another one. Sometimes just for fun I mix them up and put them under
differant instruments. If I don't like how the airplane is acting, I just
re-write the post-it note so it matches the airplanes actions.
"Lynne Miller" <mill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4b5317f.03061...@posting.google.com...
Tom
I hate to rub salt in wounds (he he) but smoke in the cockpit is probably
not a good example of when a checklist should be read,
smoke?........reading?..........hazy?..........can't see the
list?.............cough!
Tom
(Sorry man, I just had to throw a little humor in here.)
"Tim Bengtson" <tim...@us.nospam.ibm.wellmaybe.com> wrote in message
news:3EF20A...@us.nospam.ibm.wellmaybe.com...
Gil Brice
"Lynne Miller" <mill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4b5317f.03061...@posting.google.com...
Craig Prouse
> Oh, crap. Have I just been sucked in by a trolling flight-simmer?
Search for past posts my "millynne" and be amazed.
Not just your basic troll, but a compulsive liar.
Richard Kaplan
"Lynne Miller" <mill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4b5317f.03061...@posting.google.com...
USENET readers, please do not feed this troll. Email me personally for
some history here.
--
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rka...@flyimc.com
www.flyimc.com
Peter
>
> USENET readers, please do not feed this troll. Email me personally for
> some history here.
Dumb question, but since I already fell for what was obvious to you all,
why not simply post a quick history lesson here?
Dudley Henriques
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@flyimc.com> wrote in message
news:bbefcf6b46766ff3bbf546c6f9012023@TeraNews...
You might want to rethink this approach. This is a student pilot newsgroup
where people are in many cases just beginning the learning curve. You're
always going to have some posters like this. Avoiding them in my opinion is
not the way to go; at least as far as an initial answering post is
concerned. Students might not be as sophisticated as the more experienced
among the group. As flight instructors always seeking a useful teaching tool
to provide a learning experience, this type of post opens wide a door for a
learning opportunity. The best approach in my opinion as a flight instructor
is to use the post rather than ignore it if the post obviously needs
correction. The answer should be direct and to the point without being
insulting. It should strongly correct, and aimed directly not at the post
itself, but at any student who might be reading it.
The result of this approach is two fold. Students are afforded the
opportunity to learn what's actually correct, and, if enough experienced
pilots offer that one single diametrically opposed answer, the effect on
both the troll AND the students is quite effective.
Ignoring trolls is fine on a general pilots forum, but here, it's advisable
in my opinion to answer and correct. No need to start a long thread. Once is
usually enough. The students around here seem pretty smart to me. They'll
get the point! :-)
John T
>
> You might want to rethink this approach. This is a student pilot
> newsgroup where people are in many cases just beginning the learning
> curve.
Just because they're just learning flying doesn't mean they're learning
everything. When was the last time a student of yours had gray hair? :)
A USENET troll is the same regardless of group. Your instinct to help
others is admirable, but feeding a troll only propagates irrelevant threads
and it can drastically decrease the "signal-to-noise ratio" of the group.
The result is a resource that becomes useless as a learning tool.
--
John T
http://novadevgroup.com/TknoFlyer
_______________
Dudley Henriques
"John T" <j...@his.isp> wrote in message
news:73f37ddd8afbf2ab...@news.bubbanews.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >
> > You might want to rethink this approach. This is a student pilot
> > newsgroup where people are in many cases just beginning the learning
> > curve.
>
> Just because they're just learning flying doesn't mean they're learning
> everything. When was the last time a student of yours had gray hair? :)
Actually, many of my students had grey hair. It's quite common when working
with ATP's.
>
> A USENET troll is the same regardless of group. Your instinct to help
> others is admirable, but feeding a troll only propagates irrelevant
threads
> and it can drastically decrease the "signal-to-noise ratio" of the group.
> The result is a resource that becomes useless as a learning tool.
It's my opinion that your last statement is absolutely false. I gauge this
by the tremendous amount of positive e-mail I have received from students on
this group over a period of many years. For a good flight instructor, ANY
opportunity like this can be turned into a learning experience for a
student, and at an absolute minimum of bandwidth. I thought I had made it
clear that one answer is enough. There's no reason to start a dialog with a
troll. Further discussion with the students on the issue at hand however
should be encouraged.
I agree in general concept with what you're saying about trolls, but
considering the reasons I've already stated as applicable to this group
alone, I totally disagree as what you are saying pertains to this specific
group. I thought I made it quite plain that one correcting answer is all
that is required.
Be this as it may, anything I post as advice to other instructors is simply
that...advice. How everybody else approaches this issue is entirely up to
them. I personally will continue my on going practice of offering at least
one strong and correcting reply to any and all posts like the one being
discussed here. As I said, there's no need to start a thread....once is
enough. Each CFI who posts here should deal with these issues as he/she
feels best. If you are an instructor and feel no response is warranted, so
be it.
Richard Kaplan
> Dumb question, but since I already fell for what was obvious to you all,
> why not simply post a quick history lesson here?
Because this would be positive reinforcement to a troll and just encourage
him more.
Richard Kaplan
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UauIa.3955$C83.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> You might want to rethink this approach. This is a student pilot newsgroup
> where people are in many cases just beginning the learning curve. You're
It depends on the person's history posting in the group and in personal
email.
Dudley Henriques
As I've said in another post Richard; each instructor must approach this
issue as he/she sees fit. Your opinion is as valid as my own on issues like
these.
It's my understanding from your personal note to me that this particular
poster has sent you and other instructors personal attack e-mail you find
offensive, and as such, you believe he deserves no respect or acknowledgment
from the group. I can respect this.......however.......
I would counter that correcting the poster's incorrect information with a
single reply is in no way giving him respect or acknowledging him. It's
simply correcting him. There is a mind set on Usenet that postulates a
theory that answering a troll in ANY way at all is playing into the troll's
hands; affording him the opportunity to further his agenda. In many cases
this is true. I would agree that in any other scenario but a student pilot's
newsgroup, this theory has merit. I make a clear exception for this group
alone. The subject here is flight safety, not the proper care and feeding of
trolls. There are student pilots on this forum who have absolutely no idea
whether or not a particular poster is a troll. It takes time for newbies to
realize that anything they read on Usenet should be checked out with a
competent authority for verification. Over time, students learn from actual
exposure just who on the group is giving information that is useful and can
be trusted. This entire group is one continuous learning process; for
students and instructors alike.
Not that I'm the governing authority around here by a long shot, but anytime
someone posts ANYTHING on this group I personally feel is related to a
safety issue, (as not using a written checklist is in my opinion directly
related to a safety issue), I will answer such a post with a countering
opinion. Now I'm not suggesting that anyone else follow my example. I'm only
saying that this is my personal preference for handling such matters on this
specific group. I completely respect everyone else's personal preference to
do as they deem the best course.
Roger Halstead
>"Lynne Miller" <mill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d4b5317f.03061...@posting.google.com...
>> How many of you actually use a checklist?
The last time I flew in a Jet and in a twin turboprop as well, one
pilot read every thing off a little scrolling list while the other
checked each item. It was a continuous flow ... One reading, one
checking and replying. Then the first doing a read back of the
instruction and check and they were virtually religious about it.
If I ever get enough money to have either...then I'll tell what I'd
do... For the Deb I have check lists, although on landing GUMP
(repeated down wind, base, and final) suffices (with a 100 foot gear
check). Lord, even for a Cherokee, or 172 I have (or use) check lists.
Then again, I only have about 1200 hours (tach time). maybe when I get
some experience, I'll be able to remember all that stuff without the
danger of missing something.
As the majority on here are students, the NG is aimed at students, for
students...I certainly hope they are using check lists.
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
Greg Esres
Can I infer that you don't subscribe to the oft-quoted "It's a check
list, not a to-do list" ?
There is a tedency to think that because a phrase is catchy, it must
be true. I try not to fall into that trap. I use checklists as "to
do" lists and teach the same, and find it works well. Yes, sometimes
people skip something, but the killer items I have listed again in a
"Recheck" section.
Dudley Henriques
"Greg Esres" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv65fvs8a7m5ae01p...@4ax.com...
If you're saying that it's really a "to do" list, I totally agree.
Checklists denote an action to be taken.....a very defined and specific
action. Even if this action results in nothing being changed, it still
requires the physical action of notice. I have always preferred the touch
method when dealing with checklists. The physical action of movement of the
hand to a specific location; followed by a physical touch and audible sound
of not only confirmation, but confirmation noticing the required result!!!
"Oil Pressure....in the green".
I encourage pilots to audiblize to themselves when doing checklists.
This requires two audibles; the first as the item is read; the second as the
item is touched and verified to the checklist specifics.
All this is based on a simple premise; that being the pilot being taught may
be flying a Cessna 150 today, but he/she could easily be flying a 747
tomorrow. The development of this habit pattern will result in consistency,
accuracy, and flow regardless of the type being flown, which is the desired
result.
I also like the use of rechecks such as the one I've stated above somewhere
on the thread.
Dylan Smith
>How many of you actually use a checklist?
Oooh, let's open the flood-gates, why not :-)
I also use a flow for planes I'm familiar with. My Cessna 140 flow started
at the fuel selector and worked up to the mag switch for starting, as
an example. I prefer to use the check list as just that - a check list,
not a "to-do list" which I've seen many people do (I'm not saying it's
necessarily wrong to use it as a to-do list, just not efficient).
I did the ATOP course (B737 weekend), and from my limited experience with
that, the airlines also do a flow. The B737 checklist was on a single
sheet of laminated paper. I've seen people with longer checklists for
a C172!
As for checkrides - I've never had a DE object to me doing a flow, and
using the check list as a check list after the tasks are complete. No
DE has ever objected to me using a mnemonic for in-flight checklists
as opposed to a printed checklist.
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Dylan Smith
<dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>A flow check is fine, and a good one should be custom designed by every
>pilot for the SPECIFIC aircraft involved, but like any other check tool,
>flow checks are subject to distraction. I highly recommend that flow checks
>NOT be used to replace written checklists, but rather as a post action
>supplement to be used in CONJUNCTION with a written checklist. That means as
>a cross check ONLY!!!
Funnily enough - the way I've seen it done (in the ATOP course, which
admittedly is limited) and on an actual British Airways B747 flight
deck (before 11th Sept. obviously) was to use the flow first, then
the printed checklist afterwards (a challenge-response system, IIRC).
When I was a newbie pilot, using a checklist as a to-do list,
I remember missing items once or twice (look at checklist, do task,
look back at checklist, not realising you've just skipped an item).
In each case it was something trivial, like the strobes, but it
did convince me that once familiar with an aircraft it was better
to do a flow first then *check* with a checklist.
I think it's very important not to use checklists as to-do lists
(which I've seen very often).
Sydney Hoeltzli
> I would counter that correcting the poster's incorrect information with a
> single reply is in no way giving him respect or acknowledging him. It's
> simply correcting him.
The original poster's incorrect information has, in fact, been
corrected with several good responses.
Therefore, Dudley's concerns appear to have been well-satisified.
Might I respectfully suggest that you gentlemen continue this
interesting (and now moot, and theoretical) discussion under
a new heading, if you feel it has not yet been adequately addressed?
Best regards,
Sydney
Dudley Henriques
"Sydney Hoeltzli" <last...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EF3038...@swbell.net...
Ah yes, I had almost forgotten...........now I remember..........in a galaxy
far far away......in another time....another place......the day I first flew
with the snowbird.
All the best,
Michael
I used to do this. Then I was fortunate enough to fly with some
airline types, which eventually culminated in getting my multiengine
training from an airline captain. Under the influence of these
much-more-experienced pilots, I changed to the "do-and-review" method.
This is the method now universally used by the airlines, and I can
see why. IMO it is clearly superior to the "to-do list" system, and
you've pointed out exactly why. Once a pilot is familiar with and
comfortable in the aircraft, he is actually more likely to miss an
item doing the written to-do list rather than just going from memory,
because the process takes longer and is more susceptible to
distraction. As a result, you are forced to back up one to-do list
with another to-do list - the "Recheck" section.
If you teach this system, you are setting up your students for failure
because in the long run they won't use this system. Sure, they'll put
up with this while they're flying with you, because you're in charge.
I imagine in the military, people might put up with it indefinitely,
since the culture is quite authoritarian. But in the real world of
personal aviaition, the only pilot who will put up with this system is
one who flies so rarely and/or in such a variety of aircraft that he
never does remember the flow. The pilot who buys his own airplane and
gets used to it will quickly realize that this system is causing him
to make more mistakes, not less, and will abandon it. Unfortunately,
he will probably stop using checklists altogether, which is arguably
worse.
Thus I believe in teaching a system that will be used in the long term
from day one. It starts by doing the flow. The flow is designed so
that all tasks are accomplished in a logical order. This is indeed
aircraft-specific. That's a major reason airlines equip their fleets
(of a given make and model) identically - all the same equipment in
the same places so the pilot can use the same flow. The flow can
include all kinds of things - adjusting the heading gyro and bug,
setting the transponder, turning on the strobes, whatever. Failing to
complete those actions is highly unlikely to be fatal, but they're
part of normal operations. The flow also includes essential items
like fuel, engine, and control checks.
The flow is initially written out, and it is used to develop the
correct practices - generally on the ground in the airplane cockpit or
procedures trainer if one is available. What this means is that a
student pilot IS using a to-do list, at least initially. Eventually
he becomes familiar with and comfortable in the aircraft, it becomes
second nature, and the written list goes away. This should be treated
not as a sign that something is wrong but as a sign of normal progress
- the student no longer needs the written list because he has comitted
the flow to memory. That's not to say something can't be missed - and
that's the reason for the checklist.
After the flow is completed, the checklist comes out, and the killer
items AND ONLY THE KILLER ITEMS are checked. And in fact they ARE
checked using the "read it - touch it" method whenever appropriate.
If two pilots are available, then the challenge-and-response method is
used. But action is rarely required, because it has probably been
accomplished already. In fact, when action is required as a result of
a checklist, this serves as an automatic warning to the pilot - if
I've missed a killer item, what else have I missed? Am I uncurrent?
Distracted?
In a complex multiperson crew transport, even the killer item list is
long. In the typical light single, there might only be a couple of
items. Because of this, there is a tendency to put all sorts of stuff
on the checklist that doesn't belong there. A 30-item checklist for a
VFR C-150 is ridiculous, and the approach of putting anything and
everything on a checklist does not serve a pilot well when he has to
transition into something that really is complex and really does
require a 30-item checklist.
Michael
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>How many of you actually use a checklist?
>
>The method I use when I fly (Cessna Citation VII) is a flow check. If
>you have a good flowcheck for the various phases of flight, I feel a
>checklist is not necessary. I am curious what others do?
I use both, and I don't dare not use both. I took off once with the
oil cap off because my flow check failed me.
In flight, I keep the checklists handy, but I have the procedures for
the various kinds of landings memorized.
Rob
Greg Esres
failure because in the long run they won't use this system. >>
I don't buy that, since I haven't seen that result in 3 1/2 years
instructing. People tend to attach far too great import to their
preferred way of doing things, and thus I'm skeptical I'm setting
anyone up to fail. I suspect that many different approaches,
thoroughly done, will work.
Skipping items isn't a problem with checklists, per se, but a problem
in reading them. The same issues will come up reading instrument
approach plates, and pilots better become used to paying attention and
then double-checking themselves. With practice, they do.
Mark Kolber
wrote:
>There is a tedency to think that because a phrase is catchy, it must
>be true. I try not to fall into that trap. I use checklists as "to
>do" lists and teach the same, and find it works well. Yes, sometimes
>people skip something, but the killer items I have listed again in a
>"Recheck" section.
Really? Always?
You mean you start the take-off roll and then look down to read
"Rotate....55 kts" And then after you rotate, look down to check your
climb speed?
Bad example? How about engine start? Prime and then sit around for 6
seconds reading the next step while the fuel is pouring back out?
FWIW, my personal FAQ on checklists:
I see 3 different ways to use a checklist. "Do", "did", and
"briefing." All are proper, depending on the stage of flight, and the
experience level of the pilot.
"Do" List - Take the items one by one and do them. Usually done before
one develops a good personal flow pattern for an airplane and can move
to a "did" list. Example of this is the runup. In the absence of a
good personal flow pattern, you will go through each item one by one
and do them as you read them.
Even in a "do" list, there are things that should be grouped together.
For example, you don't (shouldn't) prime the engine and then sit
around looking at the checklist to see what to do next. On the
checklists I use for my students, everything from prime through oil
pressure are "boxed" with a notation that they are to be done
sequentially without stopping.
"Did" List - Use a flow pattern to perform the tasks and then go to
the list and make sure you didn't miss anything. One example of this
might be the preflight inspection. Many of us are taught and do a
"flow" type preflight, walking around the aircraft in a systematic
manner and touching and inspecting everything. After doing this, you
might pull out your checklist and read through it making sure you
covered everything. I teach this flow pattern from the very beginning
since most aircraft checklists are woefully inadequate when it come to
the preflight inspection. The other one most of are taught at the
student level is the emergency engine out check. Experienced pilots
tend to develop flow patterns for other phases of flight. Before start
and runup are particularly conducive to a flow pattern followed by a
review of the checklist.
"Briefing" List - Look at the checklist before the phase of flight as
a reminder of what to do. Best example I can give of this is the
takeoff checklist. It would be pretty unsafe (not to mention
incredibly stupid) to be rolling down the runway before you look at
the checklist to check your rotation, and then your climb out, speeds.
So you read them completely before the maneuver, to brief yourself on
what to do. My personal takeoff briefing runs the checklist items
through the enroute climb reconfiguration and includes a briefing of
the emergency procedure for loss of power on takeoff. The landing
checklist is another one that works best as a "briefing" list. It
should be complete before pattern entry (with GUMPS as a backup). The
last thing I want to do when within 5 miles of a busy airport, towered
or untowered, is be looking at a checklist.
Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"
Greg Esres
"Rotate....55 kts" >>
No need to be a smart ass.
Richard Kaplan
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.03062...@posting.google.com...
> If you teach this system, you are setting up your students for failure
> because in the long run they won't use this system. Sure, they'll put
I agree completely... especially re: the flow check followd by a "killer
items" checklist.
John Galban
I particularly liked this post about John & Martha King :
"Lastly, John & Martha did not appear to be using a checklist in their
Citation. I have a CE-500 type rating and understand the airplane, and
know that a checklist is a good thing."
So much for throwing out that checklist :-)
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
Mark Kolber
wrote:
>
>No need to be a smart ass.
It's usenet. ;)
Michael
> failure because in the long run they won't use this system. >>
>
> I don't buy that, since I haven't seen that result in 3 1/2 years
> instructing.
But you won't see it in the people who keep getting dual and otherwise
interacting with the instructor community. You see it in the people
who get their ticket and then see an instructor only once every two
years, and only because it's required. Last time I did a BFR for a
guy like that, it was painfully obvious that for him, checklist use,
like flying with a CFI, was a rare event.
> Skipping items isn't a problem with checklists, per se, but a problem
> in reading them.
Yes - it's a problem with doing things from a written list rather from
a logically organized and remembered procedure.
> The same issues will come up reading instrument
> approach plates, and pilots better become used to paying attention and
> then double-checking themselves. With practice, they do.
My experience is, they don't ever learn to do it consistently. My
favorite example of this is when I was giving recurrent training dual
to a major airline captain in his light twin. Now here's a guy with
the best training money can buy. Not only does he have hundreds of
hours of make&model time, he is a former guard pilot, current airline
captain, check airman, sim instructor, former DE in jets - the works.
Pull an engine on him at 50 ft off the deck and make him hand-fly to
the takeoff alternate and shoot a single engine ILS to Cat II minima?
No problem. Fail an engine in the procedure turn on a VOR approach,
fail his DME, his GPS, get him down to the minimum equipment? No
problem.
Yet I did set him up on that session. We did part of the work at
night, and I chose to have him do the VOR approach last. And the
plate clearly said that lighting was PCL, but gave a frequency that
was not the CTAF. He breaks out, sees the beacon, can't see the
runway, and winds up shooting the single engine missed because he
didn't catch that notation on the plate.
Michael