Re: Checklists (was Re: Transition Training/Checklists and SA)

Brian Reynolds (bareynol_at_cca.rockwell.com)
Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:09:16 -0500

Lonny M. Regan wrote:
>
> Brian Reynolds wrote:
>
> > An interesting side characteristic of interactive electronic checklists
> > is the ability to record when a checklist item was completed. Current
> > accident investigations use the cockpit voice recorder to make
> > inferences about checklist items (command, sound of something being set,
> > response). By using an interactive checklist, the actual settings could
> > be recorded. Defered items could also be 'maintained' until resolved.
> >
> > One community would see this as good (the regulatory side) while another
> > might perceive this as yet another "invasion into their space."
> >
> > Brian
>
> Hello Brian & thanks for your reply! If we have an abnormal, I want the
> problem addressed - now. Workload will not permit taking a pilot out of
> the loop to electronically check off accomplished steps in a procedure,
> ESPECIALLY if the procedure has a decision tree, which most procedures
> do! I have no problem with a display unit defaulting to the specific
> abnormal to be addressed with the associated consequences; I DO have a
> problem with taking valuable time to tell the computer which steps of the
> procedure I have complied with.
>
> As far as a NORMAL checklist, again, I see the same problem. The CVR &
> DFDR do a fine job. The tremendous increase in workload electronically
> checking off an item deferred or complied with cannot be justified!!
>
> Regards-
>
> Lonny

Within the engineering community we always have the desire to do things
because we can :)) Not necessarly becasue we need to, just becasue we
can. Perhaps checklists fall into this same category. The discussion
of electronic checklists tends to be "If we did them what would be the
best way to implement the solution." As opposed to "What value would be
brought to the flight deck by doing so."

On the few times I ridden up front, the check list lives on a
clipboard/notebook which gets moved into the best and most readable
position for whatever is going on. (also allows variations in eye sight
as well.) One question I've tried to bring up in ECL discussion is
"What display would you like to remove to add this function?" But
becasue we're engineering weenies, that seems like an implementation
detail :) <sigh> Normal checklists, take the synoptic page for the
display. But what about abnormal? The synoptic page may be the most
(and perhaps only) means of building a picture of what is going on; and
if so (or if there is the possibility of it being so) what is the
rational reason for taking it away?

>The tremendous increase in workload electronically
>checking off an item deferred or complied with cannot be justified!!
Can think of several implementations which would not be a termendous
increase in workload. Touch screen, stylus, cursor/keyclick immediately
come to mind. If it would perceived to be a large increase in workload
(and the FAA flight test folks are real good sometimes in telling us in
no uncertain terms what is and is not an increase in workload :), then
we would not bring the system to market. Any system which, in reality,
after adequate training (etc. etc. etc. :) results in a workload
increase should not have been certified.

Better argument for/against is "What problem are we trying to solve by
making checklist more complicated then they are now"? And to get right
down to it "How many lives would be saved per year if we do this or how
much money will we save by implementing this?" are better questions.

See, we do worry about you folks :))
Brian