I feel somehow challenged to reply to post #54 where a link is provided to "airmanship". The following is not intended to nihilate the concept of "airmanship". I will try to bring forward arguments why this concept cannot serve as an explanation of certain behavior. Furthermore I will try to convince why this concept may even be counterproductive in an approach to safety.
Looking at the definition provided in the link (skybrary...) it makes use of the terms consistent, good and well developed. It is not clear from this definition what the reference point is to measure/compare these standards with. When is good, good enough? How well-developed does ones skills need to be? If I make an error on these skills or judgement do I cross the line between airmanship and not-airmanship? How small may the error be to be just on the edge, 5 kts or 10% of my judgments? It is impossible to score 10/10, as I am human and therefore prone to making (small) errors.
In my eyes it gets even worse when looking at the " corner stones" in the link provided, besides that these corner stones refer to the airmanship concept themselves (understanding the challenges posed to airmanship...). These cornerstones have such a wide range of descriptions it basically describes the pilot, all the skills, knowledge and attitudes are described. The way airmanship is described it will, at the surface, always apply and therefore must be correct (for the layman not willing to dig deeper). Not adhering to SOP or rules might be a "discipline" aspect of airmanship. The solution, according to this broad concept, can only be
more airmanship (or discipline). It does not, however, gives us an explantion
why or
how pilots do not comply. Deeper questions and well argued (and possible measured) arguments will possible lead us to better solutions. This concept do not point us in that direction.
Looking with a broader view it is, in my opinion, just a way to describe how a professional is defined. Airmanship (seamanship, craftmanship...) is just a common denoter of a "professional" in the aviation world. Not an useful explanation of anything.
The danger I like to point out is that the concept of airmanship puts the "one at the sharp end" central. If we apply the definition of airmanship at the quoted 70% of accidents are human errors where do we need to improve? Look at the inconsistency of ones judgement, bad judgement or under developed skills? In other words remove the culprit from the scene and replace him/her with somebody with more airmanship... In hindsight it is always easy to find the errors, inconsistency, bad handling etc... in somebodies behavior. Especially if we establish where the bar of "good", "consistent" and " well developed" needs to be after the occurence. The airmanship concept fortifies these thoughts. Furthermore another result might be more rules/SOP to avoid the next bad airmanship experience.
If we use the "airmanship" concept carefully (in the bar, with a beer
) and look at human behavior with more detailed and refined concepts (and used by people with knowledge of these concepts AND aviation) we might be able to steer more in the direction where we can really make progress. Good examples are given in previous posts. Hopefully SMS concepts (and some more knowledgeable people in rule making/ government/ industry) will be able to step beyond "airmanship".
