TEM and Airmanship

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Threat and Error Management is branded as the 'new' Airmanship.

But does TEM replace Airmanship completely, or compliment it?

Both approaches put flight safety first.

TEM tends to offer a more 'professional' approach to 'airmanship' by discussing those topics before flight in a way that a seasoned (professional) pilot would do.

TEM and Airmanship consider safety, weather, perfomance, rules of the air, for example.

Now I appreciate it isn't mean't to be viewed like this, but TEM tends to be considered as a 'pre-flight briefing' exercise which, once discussed is 'boxed' as being completed.

Airmanship in the pre-flight brief likewise discussed issues to do with the flight - but it was more than that. It was a philosophy which was with you throughout the flight in everything you did as a pilot

What TEM doesn't seem to concentrate on as much as the 'old' Airmanship is common sense and courtesy to other airspace users.

Two instances in the past years serve to illustrate this:

I'm flying downwind in the circuit having made the 'downwind' call. Instructor and student cut inside me and fly the circuit at a lower level and end up landing first.

Now that is poor airmanship 'on the hoof'. Lack of courtesy and common sense. Is that a TEM issue which would be briefed and learn't, or more an airmanship matter?

Second, after landing (at the same airfield on the same day) several aircraft were holding on the disused cross runway. One aircraft jumped the queue and decided he was going to taxi back to the apron first. Again lack of courtesy and common sense (airmanship).

Now I'm sure that TEM is supposed to cover all the matters which make for good 'Airmanship'.

But is it being perceived, taught and exercised in the correct manner?

Should it replace 'airmanship' or compliment it?

The way it has been presented to me suggests it is being handed down from the professional flight academies without being adapted to the PPL environment within flying schools and clubs - and is losing something along the way.

[tcm13]

Very much there to compliment it.

TEM is a good tool to help manage errors that we commonly and inevitably make. Although a lot of emphasis is made on TEM at big FTOs airmanship is also discussed.

[B737900er]

My take on it is that, TEM highlights the issues that can occur before they happen and what you can do to mitigate them. Airmanship is a sugar coated way of saying 'common sense'.

What I have noticed ( I was also one of these culprits) is that the guys and girls highlight the obvious or reoccurring issues.

For example at your home base, highlighting the fact there is terrain in the north of the field which has always been there before the airport existed, or the runway is wet etc.

TEM is designed to highlight issues that don't reoccur on an everyday basis for example LVP's, Winter ops, training flights, or even flying with a friend, and to add to it, who could also be a trainer or examiner (complacency).

[Whopity]

In 1916 Robert Smith-Barry devised a flying training system known as the "Gosport System" based upon exposing pilots to the various Threats and Errors associated with flying aeroplanes, so that they could learn to Manage them safely. The Gosport System has been the basis of much of the World's flying training ever since.

Airmanship which remains largely undefined, is the aviators version of Seamanship - the art of operating a ship or boat. Thus the Gosport System is heavily intertwined with Airmanship.

TEM was developed by a partnership between the University of Texas Human Factors Research Project (UT) and Delta Airlines in 1994. As the Gosport System had never been adopted in the US they had probably come to the same conclusions that Smith-Barry had 78 years earlier!

It could be considered as re-inventing the wheel or fitting a damp course to a house that already has one however; TEM seeks to quantiy many of the factors we currently list under Airmanship. Re-educating those who have been brought up the old way is a difficult if not impossible task therefore presenting new ideas may appear to overide traditional common sense.

[fireflybob]

I'm flying downwind in the circuit having made the 'downwind' call. Instructor and student cut inside me and fly the circuit at a lower level and end up landing first.

Now that is poor airmanship 'on the hoof'. Lack of courtesy and common sense. Is that a TEM issue which would be briefed and learn't, or more an airmanship matter?

Second, after landing (at the same airfield on the same day) several aircraft were holding on the disused cross runway. One aircraft jumped the queue and decided he was going to taxi back to the apron first. Again lack of courtesy and common sense (airmanship).

The instructor at the lower level who cut inside etc is not, in my opinion, exercising TEM. One of the the threats in the circuit (and elsewhere) is other a/c. How do we manage that threat? By, amongst other things, following the rules and "conforming to the pattern of traffic" which it would appear they were not doing.

In case of taxiing in after landing - what are threats when taxiing on the ground? Amongst others that might be other aircraft and potential runway incursions. How do we manage that threat? Taxi routing and speed etc would be part of that. Excessive haste is also a potential threat.

Having used the term Airmanship for several decades I initially rankled against TEM when I first came across it but once I had really peeled back the layers and thought about it I have become a convert.

Most experience pilots already practice TEM without formally knowing it (under the guise of Airmanship). But having introduced the concept to quite a few experienced hands and the thinking behind TEM I find most also become converts. When briefing students and experienced pilots I also emphasise and illustrate that TEM can be used before and during flight effectively.

[nick14]

One of the most important factors of TEM is that it should never stop! The process of thinking ahead, anticipating threats and erros and putting in place management techniques is on going. It should start before you even leave for the airport and finish on your drive home (self critique is a great way to improve)

My biggest gripe with all students, Jet and piston is the mention of threats in the briefings because "I must use TEM" but that's it. Don't forget the critical phase of management. What good is anticipating threats and errors if you don't mention how to manage them?? As someone else has stated there is no point rhyming off the "standard threats" as this goes against all described above!

I think it is a great tool that is the basis of all training / flying.

[sloanemallorca]

HE 8 ? The Principles of Threat and Error Management (TEM) for Helicopter Pilots, Instructors and Training Organisations (http://easa.europa.eu/essi/ehest/2014/12/he-8-the-principles-of-threat-and-error-management-tem-for-helicopter-pilots-instructors-and-training-organisations/)

A good read on TEM and Airmanship.

[chrisbl]

The other aspect of TEM is the threats you pose to others. It's not a one wy street.

So in the example given of cutting into a circuit, I would expect more of an instructor and for him to consider the treat he poses.

[Pull what]

Airmanship which remains largely undefined, is the aviators version of Seamanship - the art of operating a ship or boat. Thus the Gosport System is heavily intertwined with Airmanship.

Airmanship has always been clearly defined although at the last FI seminar I was at I noticed that none of the 28 instructors could define it either, although that is par for the course with current low standards. How on earth can you teach airmanship if you don't know what it is? I seem to remember we had this discussion a while ago with instructors who couldnt understand what situational awareness was either! (TEM, by the way, has been part of the FI course for the last 10 years, I know of)

Airmanship is defined by EASA as: “The consistent use of good judgement and well-developed knowledge, skills and attitudes to accomplish flight objectives.”.

In my day at Oxford it was, “ to take the safest and most appropriate course of action in a given set of circumstances”


TEM seeks to quantiy many of the factors we currently list under Airmanship. Re-educating those who have been brought up the old way is a difficult if not impossible task therefore presenting new ideas may appear to overide traditional common sense.

Again incorrect, TEM address partially the realisation by agencies throughout the aviation world that 70-90 % of accidents have a human factor element within them.

Telling pilots that they need to keep a good lookout in the circuit is good airmanship but it doesnt really address the problem of the aircraft you didnt know about joining from the crosswind deadside and colliding with you at circuit height (Leicester) (Hamble)
Airmanship is more an attitude, TEM is scenario based risk management

Threat and Error Management is branded as the 'new' Airmanship.

But does TEM replace Airmanship completely, or compliment it?

Both approaches put flight safety first.

TEM tends to offer a more 'professional' approach to 'airmanship' by discussing those topics before flight in a way that a seasoned (professional) pilot would do.

TEM isnt in any way the “new airmanship” nor does it replace it . It is part of Airmanship as is Aviation Decision Making, Cockpit Resource Management and Situational Awareness. However all these new airmanship tools have been developed from within professional public transport flying not within the flying school community where they are still trying to extricate themselves from WW2 Tiger Moth instruction and work out if they should be doing taxy checks or not!

TEM also is an academic exercise so you cannot liken it to Smith Barrie’s teaching(apart from he was the first instructor to probably think outside the box) which was about practical flying instruction in the air involving technical skill. TEM needs to be taught on the ground and it’s about encouraging pilots to think about and manage specific risk.

[Treadstone1]

And your point is?

[BBK]

Pull what

I'm curious as to your statement regarding "current low standards". Do you have a reference for that or is it your opinion? When you say that 28 instructors couldn't define "airmanship" do you mean in general or a specific CAA approved definition.

Regarding TEM and Airmanship my own opinion is that TEM seems to be largely a new name for Airmanship. Whether you call it as such or best practice, common sense, risk mitigation etc it all distils down to keeping the flight as safe as possible. Just my tuppence worth. Personally I like it keep it as simple as possible.

BBK

[timprice]

To put my two pennys wooth in, I said TEM sounds negative to start with, to me Airmanship is king:cool:
Its the same thing with a few more bangles on it, all we want is to make aviation safer and those that think about it! by and large should be, it all comes back to the old aviation saying
Piss poor planning leads to piss poor performance
The old guys were right:D

[Pull what]

TEM certainly isnt a new name for Airmanship, I asked this question a few years ago at an instructor seminar at Cranwell to the CAA staff examiner who was supposed to be giving a briefing on TEM. He never did give any helpful information on TEM (no surprise there as it seems beyond most instructors and examiners) but he did launch into, HASELL, for reasons I still cannot understand.

Apparently he was conducting a commercial test when the candidate dared to do a HASELL check before a steep turn. Apart from bringing this up during the test, which is hardly ideal or fair for the candidate, he then went onto labour this point to us all on the ridiculousness of doing HASELL checks before steep turning exercise and asked where on earth instructors are getting this erroneous information from?

The answer could be from the man involved in the new PPL syllabus Jeremy Pratt, and I quote from his CAA recommended book:

" It is usual to carry out HASELL or HELL checks before a steep turn"

Perhaps Jeremy has had a rethink since then though as I notice that HASELL or 'The Collision Avoidance Turn' isnt mentioned in his new syllabus either!

[fireflybob]

The answer could be from the man involved in the new PPL syllabus Jeremy Pratt, and I quote from his CAA recommended book:

" It is usual to carry out HASELL or HELL checks before a steep turn"


Not with me it isn't!

Whatever for?

[TheOddOne]

Not with me it isn't!

Just my reaction, but then I thought..

well actually, yes, for the steep turn, I do ensure that there is enough height should it depart before corrective action is taken, so I normally would do the first session of steep turns at a height of 2,000'. Engine? Well a FREDA check before starting is good. Lookout? Essential! Both left and right, as you'll very rapidly be pointing in both those directions. Location? Yes, of course, it's too easy to wander off downwind, maybe into controlled airspace.

So, yes, I suppose a HELL check is appropriate after all, though I've never referred to it as such for this exercise.

TOO

[Broadlands]

The skills test asks for a 45 degree turn which is hardly steep. But then again I started in gliding where 45 is a normal turn.

[Whopity]

Have we forgotten the purpose of the steep turn, the Threat?

[Broadlands]

Whopity, please explain more. Forgetting the test, if it is to avoid a threat then I may want to roll into a turn in a completely different way than what is expected on a ST.

[Cows getting bigger]

Ooooh errrrrrr, a couple of thoughts:

Firstly, if I'm teaching/examining steep turns I'll damn well make sure a HASELL/HELL check is done, normally by myself. Let's just call it self preservation.

TEM/airmanship - I've always thought that in trying to label and/or quantify airmanship we have somehow diluted the point. I think that TEM is an integral part of airmanship and the EASA definition of airmanship is a pretty reasonable stab; I would offer that encyclopaedias have been written about airmanship and they will still not completely capture the nature of the beast. I'm also intrigued how some think that airmanship can be taught - it can be developed, nurtured and refined. But taught? I'm not so sure. I fly with multi-thousand hour pilots who demonstrate little in the way of airmanship, despite having undergone extensive and expensive training at the 'World's best' schools and subsequent line training. Equally, I'll jump into a Cessna at the weekend and be teaching a 17 year-old the Effects of Controls (Part One) and this individual will be demonstrating strong, encouraging natural airmanship attributes.

[Whopity]

Whopity, please explain more.
Avoidance; Aircraft, mast, cables. HASELL check and you are DEAD

[Pull what]

I think quite a few instructors forget the main basic objective of the PPL, to produce a qualified pilot that can carry passengers safely within the limitations of their low experience.

Whether you, as an instructor, think that the HASELL check shouldnt be done or not shouldnt really influence your decision to give a student the safety net of such a check and allow him to make the choice of whether such a check is relevant, based on his capability and experience, rather than yours. Low hour pilots still need a duty of care especially when an instructor isnt directly involved after licence issue.

Lack of H has killed quite a few pilots with steep turn manoevres and recently killed a student and instructor in a Tomahawk with slow flying-would you be happy for your student to be doing a series of steep turns in a Tommy at 2000 feet over a built up area without having a lookout?

How many PPL after getting their license make straight for the local area and their houses and guess what they do over them sometimes at around a 1000 feet or even lower.

The fact that the skills test calls for a 45 degree turn doesnt mean that 60 degree turns cannot be taught and practiced and it will not stop the more adventurous pilot after PPL either trying them out at low level and exceeding 45 degrees especially with the distraction of looking at or trying to photograph something at low level.

Mis handled steep turns can lead to loss of control and any exercise that involves a potential loss of control needs some form of memory jog safety check beforehand.

[Cows getting bigger]

Whopity, I guess you also practice the base-to-final stall/incipient spin at about 500ft in the cct or do you do a bit of TEM having considered you're only simulating a scenario? :)

[Whopity]

HASELL checks are a precursor to aerobatics, spinning, spiral dives etc when the aircraft is likely to be in a position where avoidance may be compromised. In the case of a steep turn you are training the student to fly a co-ordinated level turn with the main objective of being able to avoid someone or something at any level. The aircraft is under control and introducing inappropriate checks may delay the necessary action. Students will subconsciously recall the first demo that you give them. Lookout is essential as always.

I would not teach a student to do steep turns at 500 feet initially, because the teaching exercise includes spiral dive entry and recovery along with stalling in the turn; items frequently omitted by the FI. The objective is to teach the student how to do it correctly before moving on to the upset situation where appropriate checks should be conducted.

A student ready for a licence skill test should be able to demonstrate a steep turn at 500 ft following a good lookout, and used to be conducted as such on the UK PPL skill test as part of the low level section.

In the case of a stall (base turn or otherwise) you are training the student to recognise and recover from a situation that they should not find themselves in wheras, the steep turn is a manoeuvre they should be ably to fly with certainty and precision.

[Centaurus]

Firstly, if I'm teaching/examining steep turns I'll damn well make sure a HASELL/HELL check is done, normally by myself.

Funny about all these strange and sometimes quite hilarious mnemonics- most of which I have never heard of; although to some it is fun inventing new ones. We are required to demonstrate steep turns in the instrument rating test in a Boeing 737 full flight simulator. Does that means we must do a HASELL check first? I am sure our Examiners would laugh you out of the simulator. Incidentally, pray what exactly is a HASELL check?

One check taught to me by a young and inexperienced instructor who invented it, was a short final check in a Cessna 150. It was PPUFF checks on final. It stood for Prop Pitch Control not applicable. Power Poles (Now that is a case for TEM!). Undercarriage Fixed therefore not applicable. Flaps. Feathered Friends. (TEM, again which included which way to turn/descend/climb) if a bird come s your way:D

[Pull what]

In a Boeing 737 full flight simulator. Does that means we must do a HASELL check first?

Think the clue may be in the word 'simulator' or did they not explain in the pre sim briefing that's its just a pretend aircraft and you still get to go home afterwards if you crash it?

[Whopity]

Firstly, if I'm teaching/examining steep turns I'll damn well make sure a HASELL/HELL check is doneSo what would you do if the lookout turn (second L) was at 60 degrees of bank?

[Cows getting bigger]

Whopity you're missing the point. I don't give a flying f*** whether the student does a HASELL check. What I do do is make sure that the exercise I'm about to complete can be done safely - TEM. Indeed, in your second paragraph you've indicated that you do TEM before commencing an initial steep turn exercise (you mention a safe height - i.e. not 500ft). Do you really launch into an instructional steep turn without having a good look (i.e. not just standard lookout)? If you do, what county do you frequent? :ooh:

Centaurus, go and do an intentional stall in you 737 for real without doing a HASELL check (or equivalent) and you will be fired.

[Pull what]

Whopity you seem confused by the syllabus, the prime reason for teaching steep turns is to teach a precision exercise, there is nothing in the present syllabus that calls for collision avoidance turns nor is there in tbe skill test.
The skill test calls for a steep turn through 360 degrees-this isnt a collision avoidance turn!
The skill test also calls for a a steep gliding turn not below 40 degree angle of bank

A student ready for a licence skill test should be able to demonstrate a steep turn at 500 ft following a good lookout, and used to be conducted as such on the UK PPL skill test as part of the low level section.

Standard Doc 19 (skill test) mentions a steep turn in a gliding configuration at low level and again this is not for collision avoidance

However I certainly teach collision avoidance but it nothing like the turn called for in the syllabus and test, its an abrupt emergency turn right at max rate for 90 degrees

[Genghis the Engineer]

This is interesting, having been teaching steep turns this morning, my mind's fresh.

I can absolutely see Whopity's viewpoint that a steep turn is an avoidance manoeuvre, without pause or checks. That would appear to match Pull What's "collision avoidance" turns, and for that matter how I think of the manoeuvre and both practice and teach it.

But the 360deg turn - what's that for? A co-ordination exercise? A primer for aerobatics one day? Demonstration of situational awareness? Setting up for teaching about spiral dive and recovery? I can see it has value for all of those: and hopefully most good instructors use it for most of those reasons - but does that require HASELL checks in any case? You're not going into negative g, you're not going near any mode that's likely to cause a loss of control. If it's flown faintly in balance, nothing that's in the aeroplane should shift. The engine is not being asked to do anything special. On the other hand, getting pilots into the habit of doing HASELL checks before a steep turn might create a "bad habit" pause when they need to do a steep turn for safety.

So why HASELL checks? Yes before stalling, but steep turns? Can't see the argument.

G

[Whopity]

the prime reason for teaching steep turns is to teach a precision exercise,WHY? WHY? WHY? What is the purpose? Part of teaching is giving the student a good reason for what they are doing otherwise much of it seems pointless.

[Kengineer-130]

The above post suggests the PIC is a) terminally stupid, b) totally incompetant or c) suffering from god syndrome...

Was it a towered/ information airfield? I'd have called the tower emergency number & asked them to deny take off clearance, the actions of the PIC could have vast implications on the whole GA community... Imagine the Prop failing a few hundred feet off the ground :mad:

Inexcusable

[Broadlands]

At risk of thread drift, it was information and pilot could not be physically stopped.

Whopity has advised in the past contacting the pilot's insurance company if ever there is a question about a pilot/aircraft, but this only works if they give their details.

Worst airmanship/TEM I think I have ever seen.

[Pull what]

So what would you do if the lookout turn (second L) was at 60 degrees of bank?

Remind the student that a more efficient lookout can be accomplished with a medium turn which gives more time and less division of attention.

[nick14]

I am 100% with Whopity on this one as well. What really frustrates me with the industry as a whole, is this idea and philosophy of training for test. The result is a pilot who can execute a specified routine of manoeuvres to certain criteria. If something out of scope occurs they are ill equipped to deal with it.

Ask yourself why that manoeuvre is in the test schedule in the first place.

It's an avoidance manoeuvre and so HASELL checks by the student in the setup are silly. Remember that the human brain will revert to the first taught response under pressure.

[Centaurus]

What really frustrates me with the industry as a whole, is this idea and philosophy of training for test. The result is a pilot who can execute a specified routine of manoeuvres to certain criteria. If something out of scope occurs they are ill equipped to deal with it.


Isn't that so true. But is happens all the time especially with students who have English a second language. One classic example is a flying school in Australia that focusses almost exclusively on training Chinese nationals who after reaching their CPL and instrument rating go back to China directly into the RH seat of various transport jets.

The syllabus for instrument ratings includes seven cross country IFR dual flights followed by the final test for the instrument rating. Instead of sticking to the CAA approved syllabus and sticking to separate routes and destinations on each dual flight, the school has its students flying the same route seven times and with expected R/T calls written on a piece of paper and used by the students. The test itself covers exactly the same route as those previously.

This is because they often lack the English language skills needed to do the cross-country flight and cover all the separation with other aircraft talking requirements.

It gets better. Before doing the first of the seven IFR cross-country exercises and the final test as above, the students "fly" exactly the same route as the test seven times in a simulator.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I had a Chinese national as a PhD student who I think would have regarded that approach as perfectly reasonable. I failed her.

G

[Pull what]

It's an avoidance manoeuvre and so HASELL checks by the student in the setup are silly. Remember that the human brain will revert to the first taught response under pressure.

Wrong, the test requirement is not an avoidance turn

What you are suggesting then is that a pilot confronted with a head on collision will go through a HASELL check, including a 360 degree clearing turn turn before making a avoiding turn to miss the traffic, thats as ridiculous as saying that a pilot who stalls the aircraft will do a HASELL check before recovery because that's what he always taught to do, how ridiculous.

Ask yourself why that manoeuvre is in the test schedule in the first place.

Ask yourself why the test calls for a 1) 45 degree turn through 360 degrees and 2)a gliding descending turn and YOU might be able to work out that these are not collision avoidance turns. A collision avoidance turn is an instant entry max rate turn to the right through 90 degrees and thats all. I t doesn't have to be on a syllabus or on a skill test programe for a thinking conscientious instructor to be able to teach it!

If you feel that a silly HASELL check has no relevance fine but I wonder if you would authorise a student in a Tomahawk to do a max rate steep turn over the centre of Birmingham at 500 feet agl?

[fireflybob]

If you feel that a silly HASELL check has no relevance fine but I wonder if you would authorise a student in a Tomahawk to do a max rate steep turn over the centre of Birmingham at 500 feet agl?

Would that not be against the low flying regulations?

My student, having been taught Threat & Error Management, would act accordingly (but he/she wouldn't do HASELL before a steep turn).

[Pull what]

Would that not be against the low flying regulations ?

Well thats the H and L done Bob, you just need to work on the ASEL now!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Scenario (not Birmingham probably, but could be High Wycombe, Maidenhead, Sheffield...)

500ft, on approach, over a connurbation, perfectly legally.

Some halfwit with a drone zips it right onto your flight path.

Do you:-

(a) hit it, and hope that it's within the birdstrike criteria

(b) Start doing your HASELL checks

(c) Use max aileron to roll into a steep turn, apply some extra power, then pull just short of the stall warner to get out of the way.

G

[Pull what]

Obviously C but youve missed the point again.

HASELL is a check before making a planned steep turn as an exercise not a check you would make before making an emergency break, as Ive said at least 3 times now.

[BEagle]

Pull what wrote: HASELL is a check before making a planned steep turn as an exercise not a check you would make before making an emergency break, as Ive said at least 3 times now.

HASELL is emphatically NOT a check required before flying steep turns whether planned or as avoidance.

Fluff it up however you like with talk of TEM and associated headshrinker-horse$hit, but you're totally wrong - in at least 3 posts.

Who started the nonsense of HASELL before steep turns?

[Pull what]

Who started the nonsense of HASELL before steep turns?

Mostly the authors of practically all UK flying training manuals who were ex air force pilots and instructors such as, Phillips, & Cole, Birch & Bramson and Ron Campbell-Oh and also that nice man that produced the latest EASA masterpiece you love, Mr Pratt:

I quote from his book - AFE- The Private Pilot Licence Course-Exercise 15 (bottom of the page)

HASELL

It is usual to carry out HASELL or HELL checks before starting a steep turn

If you ever start instructing again you might want to read that book as its the largest selling UK flying training book.

Meanwhile the first book on flying training after the war, and I know you will be familiar with this one says:

Birch & Bramson - FLIGHT BRIEFING FOR PILOTS Vol 1(5th edition)
Page 227


Ex 15 Advanced Turning
PRE FLIGHT BRIEFING
AIRMANSHIP
Height
Airframe
Security
Engine
Location
Lookout
Suitability of weather

I do commend you on the use of the word emphatic though, its one of my favourites, along with arrogance and ignorance!

[BEagle]

Putting your snide comments aside, Pull What, you will probably recall that the Advanced Turning exercise also includes:

Approach to the stall in the turn
Recognition of and recovery from the spiral dive
Recovery from other unusual attitudes

So for those elements of the training exercise, it would be normal to include HASELL checks. But for a simple everyday 45° AoB steep turn, HASELL checks are not required.

[Pull what]

Oh dear-wrong again

Birch & Bramson show two pages of pre flight briefings for steep turns

Ex 15 Advanced Turning (Steep Turns and Steep Descending Turns) on page 227, as quoted above in my earlier post where under Airmanship it goes through a complete HASELLS check

On page 228 Ex 15 Advanced Turning (Approach to the Stall, Spiral Dive: Maximum Rate Turn) under AIRMANSHIP it states AS FOR STEEP TURN

Mr Pratt doesnt differentiate either between what type of steep turn you are carrying out he merely states (quote) "it is usual to carry out HASELL or HELL checks before starting a steep turn.

You asked the question, Who started the nonsense of HASELL before steep turns?

I am merely answering your question using two of the best selling UK training manuals.

[BEagle]

Having just spoken with him, the author agrees that HASELL checks before academic steep turns are unnecessary, they are ONLY required for the 'Approach to the stall in the turn, Recognition of and recovery from the spiral dive and Recovery from other unusual attitudes' elements of Exercise 15.....

The next edition of his books may well clarify this....

[sapperkenno]

Having just spoken with him, the author agrees that HASELL checks before academic steep turns are unnecessary

Who decided he was right anyway? Why are his (and others) guides and manuals the ones that everyone else works from?

[Pull what]

Who decided he was right anyway? Why are his (and others) guides and manuals the ones that everyone else works from?

Exactly-work from your own syllabus but at least Mr Pratt includes the Collision Avoidance Turn

Having just spoken with him, the author agrees that HASELL checks before academic steep turns are unnecessary

Ah Beagle, your a Psychic Medium too but please give my regards to Alan & Neville when you speak to them next! Oh and remember JP had 5 instructor technical advisers too so no doubt you will be speaking to them also!

At the end of the day you are either an 'under trainer' or an 'over trainer'. In my experience few instructors actually instruct to any rigid syllabus anyway, they seem to make it up as they go along so making a safety check before a steep turn is the least of our worries.

[Whopity]

Already done to death: http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/185407-hasell-check-before-steep-turns-ex15.html

[Pull what]

Yes it has been done to death but I am the first to mention it is(HASELL) actually contained in two of the UK best selling flying traing manuals so what does that tell you? It tells me that instructors never bother reading the very books they telll their students to go and read!

Bugle learned to fly at Cranfield in the 60s when Birch & Bramson was the ONLY text book in the UK so I do not understand why he poses the question -who started this nonsense?

The CAA examiner I mentioned in the seminar reacted in the same way with the same question. It proves to me that this is an indsustry where the right hand doesnt know what the left hand is doing and people have forgotten the main objective of producing the safest possible pilot. Ego before student isnt best practice even on forums

[BEagle]

I note your usual childish sniping, Pull what.... Do grow up.

Actually I learned to fly in 1968 under the tutelage of Ron Campbell, so the instructors didn't need to crib from some industry book - they taught as Ron required. They were also checked by HQ CFS as they taught RAF Scholarship holders, such as the 6 of us on my course.

And we didn't do pre-stalling / spinning checks before practising steep turns.

[Mach Jump]

Gentlemen. Is it really worth falling out over this?

I thnk that formal 'HASELL' checks are universally accepted for stalling/spinning/aeros, debatable for UP/UA recoveries, and unnecessary for simple steep turn practice.

I understand, however, that some instructors will prefer to include them for all of the above, and, as they can be completed in a relatively short time, I really don't see what the problem is with that.

Textbooks are there to educate and inform, not to be followed slavishly.


MJ:ok:

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Surely common sense dictates that you aren't going to carry out steep turns when you are too low, close to cloud, in controlled airspace or near airfields - and a good lookout both before and during the manoeuvre is a must.

So, without trying you've completed H*LL of the HELL check. Regularly monitoring the engine(s) is also good airmanship.

Therefore you don't need a book and an argument to fly safely when practising steep turns :)

Combine a level steep turn with some other training exercise or variation on the theme (as mentioned above) and then it would certainly be good practice, and common sense, to add in the additional items from the HASELL checks.

Mountains and molehills.

[Above The Clouds]

Surely common sense dictates that you aren't going to carry out steep turns when you are too low, close to cloud, in controlled airspace or near airfields.


And why not, with maybe the exception of inside controlled airspace.

The steep turn is to teach a student to learn the safe co-ordinated use of the controls while maintaining accuracy, ultimately the time they are probably going to use this style of manoeuvre is as an avoidance manoeuvre from another aircraft, the whole object of instructing is to introduce the student to as many real situations as possible not hand hold them through the whole of their course.

[mykul10]

As an FIC looking to return to flying after a 4 year break TEM is certainly something I need to get to grips with.

I agree that few FIs cannot give a clear definition of Airmanship. This used to be a question I put to them on the course and usually got some very noble, sometimes waffly examples of Airmanship, but not a definition.

The definition I gave was
"the elements required for safe and efficient flight".

I would like to hear how FIs present TEM in pre-flight briefings. Has anybody replaced the "Airmanship" heading with "TEM"? do they add an extra "TEM" heading.

I can imagine plenty of examples that could come under either heading.

[Whopity]

Has anybody replaced the "Airmanship" heading with "TEM"? In the main that is exactly what has happened.

[timprice]

To me it's a strom in a tea cup, TEM is Airmanship just with with more bells and whistles.
The ultimate aim is a safe flight for everyone and with all these changes brought in, flight safety has not improved as fast as the aircraft, how to corect it is ahard one.:ugh:

[Cows getting bigger]

Agreed. Same principles, just fancy words.