Airmanship question

[downwind]

'Threat and Error Management training can’t develop Airmanship. You can only gain Airmanship by experience. You can’t learn it – you’ve either got it or you haven’t'

What do people think about this statement?

[Cornish Jack]

Pretty obvious, really.
Nothing, but nothing, can replace the learning curve derived from the 'half crown/sixpence syndrome' experienced by exposure to an out-of-the-ordinary or, more particularly a life threatening situation. Talk about it all you like but it only really registers when you've 'been there, done that and got the tee shirt'. Even then, there are those who don't make full use of the experience but TALKING about it is no substitute.

[Non-PC Plod]

Of course experience (qualitative & quantitative) is what will develop good airmanship. But - good quality training (whether MCC, LOFT, or whatever) should be able to give you a concentrated hit of valuable learning experiences. If you are being suitably stretched in well thought-out and managed scenarios, you can get lots of experiences crammed into a couple of hours that might have taken you years to come up against naturally.
What is needed either in the training or the real environment is a good role model to learn from.

[blueplume]

Flying with a variety of co-pilots (meaning Captains as well as F/O) it is easy to see which ones have finesse and the will to work that extra bit for a good result and which ones do not.
Airmanship is certainly about applying what one learns but there is more and this can only come from the personality behind the pilot. Many do the job 95%but only a few are prepared to say that's not good enough.
A good role model is important but you shouldn't really have to be told to keep on the centreline on the take-off roll or maintain runway track by correcting for wind, to name but two examples.

[sticktime]

I agree with the above, those who 'come right' seem to have realised it, not learnt it ! The others just dont know :hmm:

[safetypee]

“ Threat and Error Management training can’t develop Airmanship ”
This of course depends on what is taught in TEM training, … how it is taught and the objectives of the training.
“ You can only gain Airmanship by experience. You can’t learn it – you’ve either got it or you haven’t' ”
As both TEM and Airmanship involve skills (skills of thinking) the subjects can be taught and improved. Aptitude may play a part, hence there may be pilots who can ‘fly’ (acceptable flying aptitude), but have weak airmanship (poor thinking aptitude).

One of the first problems might be to understand what TEM is. ICAO and FAA follow the ‘academic influenced terminology’ from Texas Uni. A recent article by Capt Lyttle (RAeS Flt Ops Group) on MPL identified many ambiguities in the description of TEM; e.g. from ICAO; 'The Threat and Error Management (TEM) Model is a conceptual framework that assists in understanding, from an operational perspective, the interrelationship between safety and human performance in dynamic and challenging operational contexts.' Capt Lyttle also notes that there is no attempt to establish the relationship of 'threat' and 'error' with 'hazard' and 'risk', or to involve the concept of safety margin, the need for risk management in operations.

From a simpler viewpoint, TEM can be considered the identification of threats and errors, and exercising judgment in managing them. This involves the skills of situation awareness and comparison, which depend on prior knowledge. Skills require practice (currency) and discipline (both in thought and action). As all of the preceding items are aspects of Airmanship (as defined by Tony Kern), TEM therefore involves Airmanship and can help develop it. In many ways TEM is airmanship and thus TEM training is the latest ‘formal’ method of training airmanship theory; the practice must come from operations.

Perhaps a significant issue is how to remember and then recall what has been taught – aspects of gaining experience. Areas such as briefing and debriefing are key tools; so too is peer example - leading by example.
A more telling question might be to ask why TEM should be taught separately, or at least identified as a separate subject to CRM or airmanship. Do the ICAO / JAA requirements reflect a weakness in current training or is this just another initiative to reinvigorate HF training?