TEM and Airmanship
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEM and Airmanship
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: ....
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEM and Airmanship
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: In Space
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mallorca
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEM
HE 8 ? The Principles of Threat and Error Management (TEM) for Helicopter Pilots, Instructors and Training Organisations
A good read on TEM and Airmanship.
A good read on TEM and Airmanship.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: hayling island
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put my two pennys wooth in, I said TEM sounds negative to start with, to me Airmanship is king
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Threat & Error Management & HASELL
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!
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!
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"
" It is usual to carry out HASELL or HELL checks before a steep turn"
Whatever for?
Last edited by fireflybob; 3rd Jul 2015 at 17:52.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Not with me it isn't!
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
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.