Jump to content

Talk:BUMMMFITCHH

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_


Redirect

[edit]

This article does not comply with the policy WP:NOTMANUAL in that it does not describe a checklist but details it line by line as would be suitable for a flight training manual. This is not encyclopedic content and so it has been redirected. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Flight training makes no sense at all. Someone searching for BUMMFITCH is either looking for the checklist or something akin to old Cumbric for "fifteen." The checklist is just that, an aid to memory, and doesn't come close to being "instructions" for how to land an aeroplane. Now I'll go put it back. __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you will try to gain WP:consensus on how to proceed. If you don't think it should be redirected to Flight training then my next choice would be to nominate it for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I don't see any consensus for what you're doing here... care to convince me that it makes sense to redirect it as you did unilaterally? Care to sit in a plane with someone landing it based on these "instructions?" __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I think you have just proven the point on WP:NOTMANUAL which says: " Wikipedia articles should not read like: 1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides and recipes.". This article was very clearly a checklist or "how-to-do-it" article. These are prohibited on Wikipedia. The second problem is that, even if this was an encyclopedic article, there are no reliable sources given. Of the two sources one is a Forum which is not a permitted source and the other one cites a website, which while also being WP:SPS, doesn't even mention this particular checklist, although it has lots of variations. I would support having an article on this checklist provided that it cites reliable sources and doesn't list the checklist items themselves. I should note that I have made tens of thousands of landings in a wide array of aircraft and never used this checklist. In looking at this article back in Nov I sent links to dozens of pilots and instructors, none had heard of it, which explains the lack of sources available. - Ahunt (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad we can't ask Harald Penrose about the "bumfit" checklist. I bet he would have known about it, although he may not have used it, or may have used a variation of it. (a careful reading of the article shows that it mentions that there are numerous variations, and gives a synthesis of all possible elements of the variations.) The point here being, that it would have been English pilots of a previous generation who were familiar with what may soon become a historical curiosity.
"proven the point on WP:NOTMANUAL"? Quite the opposite. No one in their right mind would read this article and then go land a plane without other information and training. I'll be working in my sandbox on a copy of the article, to make that clearer. Expect a heads-up when there's something to show there. __Just plain Bill (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this then: I think it would be justifiable, given your thoughtful reference to Yan Tan Tethera that this article could be restored as a "linguistic" sort of piece rather than a how-to manual. As it was last written it is very "how-to", but in rereading it I think that can be addressed. We still need to find a ref, but I think this would be an improvement over where we are now. In checking around we seem to have a whole collection of aviation mnemonic articles, like GUMPS, CIGAR (aviation) and BUMPH some of which are okay with regards to WP:NOTMANUAL and sourced, but many not. That last one seems to be another version of this article's subject. If we can sort this one out between us I will create a nav box to tie them together. How is that? - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're cookin... I was aware of GUMPS but not the others... Got to run right now, but this is definitely on my to-do list... cheers! __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let me give it a try and see what I can do. Incidentally no luck on a ref - most of the net refs point here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the changes have been made, including the nav box. I believe in this state the article complies closely enough with WP:NOTMANUAL to pass muster, but we still need some refs. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a less confrontational note, I believe the use of this article is less about how to accomplish a landing, than the linguistic curiosity of how the mnemonic relates to an ancient language. I've seen published descriptions of some fields that recommend a low pass first, to clear the field of sheep. There's a tenuous connexion to Yan Tan Tethera there. __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that, as long as its existance is sourced as per WP:V to a reliable source and isn't a "how to" as per WP:NOTMANUAL. - Ahunt (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the intent of this particular title is exactly the same as BUMPH? Any new content should be added to that article and this page redirected there instead of flight training. I have references to similar mnemonics in flight training books but even there the author is cautious to point out that the trainee pilot should 'use the checklist from the POH (Pilots Operating Handbook)'. It is a murky area but references can be found even for the variations. Out of interest I started flying in gliders using the BGA recommended pre-takeoff check of CBSIFTCB (with an E added later), pre landing check of WULF or USTALL (both the latter are discouraged now with the advice to configure the aircraft for landing and concentrate on the circuit). I converted to motor gliders which use the BGA CBSIFTCB PPTI. Later, on conversion to 'Group A' aircraft, I was made to use a written check list but shortly afterwards I was advised to use TTMMFFCGGHHC in my head for takeoff (which is a longer version of the Spitfire check, TMPFFR) and BUMFFPICHH for pre landing (P for Prop to fine pitch) which again is a longer version of the Spitfire 'UMP and Flaps'. HASELL, the FREDA enroute check, TR(i)PACER for enroute radio calls and CTNIPPLHQ for 'Mayday' transmissions are others that I was taught to memorise and use. The tricky part as Ahunt says is how to avoid the 'how to' element when referring to any of these mnemonics. There will be many variations of these around the world and which ones to include or exclude could be another problem. Looking at the pre-redirected article there were elements of 'how to' such as 'it is good practise to do such and such...etc'. I am happy to help if I can anyway. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points! I have added a nav box that includes this article and also BUMPH, but I think a good argument can be made that these should be merged. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better as a bulleted list, without prescriptive explanations. I'm easy to please; if you think merging with BUMPH is the right thing, then go nuts, but please keep a link to Yan Tan Tethera. I just wanted to make sure the encyclopedia retained the link between that and this checklist. I'll be keeping an eye out for a reference, but as an older rev of the article said, this may be "part of aviation folklore, and therefore references are few and far between." __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are getting there! No problem keeping a link to Yan Tan Tethera in there - I think it is historically relevant for perspective. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

Until we find a source for it, I think the recently added etymology section goes too far. This article has a hat note pointing at Yan Tan Tethera, which points back here in a "see also" entry. For now, I think that is enough.

By the way, different versions of the checklist will have different numbers of items. Not every aircraft needs an undercarriage or prop pitch check, for example. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your deletion, it was all speculation and opinion. I tagged it as WP:OR - you just beat me to the next step! Thanks for taking care of it! - Ahunt (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that if the "fullest form" were expanded to include PP instead of P (for Prop Pitch), then the number of items would be 15, i.e. bumfit. Or is the whole connection to sheep-counting numerals just coincidental similarity of sound? --Haruo (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply, but, thinking about it, a checklist is about enumeration. Starting with "yan, tan..." and carrying on, getting to bumfit is three quarters of the way to a score of sheep. Imagine pausing while fifteen sheep cross the road in front of you, and you will find it is a big enough flock to be worth minding. A mnemonic only has to be so memorable, in other words it only needs to carry a certain small amount of memorability, to be useful. Is there a more complete, larger list somewhere? If not, bumfit might be enough items in a strange plane, absent the benefit of a formal check-out in that type of aircraft. More questions than answers here until something better shows up. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We still haven't been able to find a ref for this article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be a remarkably trivial piece of WP:OR, but WP:OR it is; folk etymology at the very earliest stage. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would put it down as a wild coincidence myself. Since this article has been unreferenced since May 2008 and since my own search through aviation textbooks and the internet has yielded nothing on the subject, I am inclined to think the whole subject is non-notable and nominate the article for deletion as non-encyclopedic. Any thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The history of this page is pretty skimpy compared to some; in other words, it hasn't attracted very many volunteer editors. One of my reasons for defending it has been the hope that it would stay around long enough for someone to see it, know where to look for verification, and add the source. That hasn't happened in almost two years, which I happen to think is too bad. To paraphrase an old toast, "Who knows where this came from? Not many, and they're all dead."
I've dropped a note on the originating editor's page about this turn of the discussion. I don't think redirecting to Flight training, as happened before here, and is still the case with BUMMPFFICHH is a particularly useful thing in encyclopedic terms, since the target page does not even mention checklists. The checklist page only mentions aviation by way of an external link on the history of how aviation checklists first came to be used. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been though dozens of flying training textbooks and have found no mention of this at all, even in sources that mention other mnemonics. I have also done a pretty extensive internet search and found nothing but mirrors of this page and "luring" websites (ones that put tons of words on a page to attract search engines). I can find no evidence that this subject exists or meets WP:N. I wasn't proposing redirecting the page again, I was proposing to go to WP:AFD where we would have a debate on it and then either keep it or delete it as per the consensus found. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD in place. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with GUMPS

[edit]
After a week this proposal clearly has no consensus to proceed so I will remove the tags. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUMPFISH

[edit]

In Australia we're taught BUMPFISH on fixed wings. Breaks, undercarriage, mixture, pump on and pressure, fuel (amount and positive pressure after pump on), instruments, switches, hatches and harnesses. I would suspect it's the origin of 'BUMMMFITCHH' given it's moving towards complexity. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can add mention of this if you have a ref that we can cite. - Ahunt (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PA-38 Tomahawk

[edit]

The reference cited for the PA-38 Tomahawk (just given as was not verifiable as no URL has been provided and refers to a particular operator's checklist. I did my initial flight training in PA-38s and the pre-landing checks with the flight school I trained at used a different variation of the mnemonic - BUMFISCH (Brakes, Undercarriage, Mixture, Fuel (pumps, quantity, tank), Instruments, Switches (mags, master, lights), Carby heat, Hatches and harnesses). Along with the comment above by the IP user, is this not evidence that it varies depending on the individual operator? The reference apparently also advises that the POH (published by Piper and approved by the regulator as part of the certification process) should be consulted for "full procedure". That suggests the POH is the authoritative document if anything is to be cited. However section 4 of the PA-38 POH on normal approach and landing procedures gives no mnemonic at all! I am removing this paragraph in line with WP:Verifiability. Dfadden (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BUMMMFITCHH&oldid=1225438499"