Flight Instructors Manual by Campbell

[Banana Joe]

Would anyone suggest the mentioned book in preparation for a Flight Instructor course? So far the only source of information I have found are the FAA handbooks and manuals from the Aussie and NZ CAA.

[David J Pilkington]

I know that Campbell's book is recommended by some flight schools in Australia and used as a text book. Flicking through it, it seems very good.

Some years ago I liked Kershner's book and I see that it is kept up to date although aimed at USA instructors. You can peek at a 13 page sample here https://www.asa2fly.com/The-Flight-I...ver-P3862.aspx

I didn't bother keeping the textbook that I was given when I did my flight instructor rating in the early '90s.

Most new flight instructors that I encounter in Australia have never seen the CASA Flight Instructor Manual. Certainly that is a good thing with regard to stalling and spinning - one day it may be revised.

[Whopity]

Campbell's manual is probably based upon RAF CFS notes from the mid 50s. A more up to date version from the 90s is available here:

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by Banana Joe

Would anyone suggest the mentioned book in preparation for a Flight Instructor course? So far the only source of information I have found are the FAA handbooks and manuals from the Aussie and NZ CAA.

Iīm currently in the middle of an FI course and happily using the "Flight Instructors Manual" by "R D Campbell". I like the way the manual is structured, logically in preparation for each of the flight exercises, and in line with the sequencing of the EASA curriculum. Since flying, and learning to fly, conventional Single Engine Piston airplanes havenīt changed much for many decades, this books remains as valid as ever. I donīt find the assumptions of student behavior, nor the proposed techniques in adaptation, to be outdated, I find that the book guides you in the right direction.

I downloaded my Electronic version on eBooks and bought it from Pooleyīs: https://www.pooleys.com/shop/pooleys...nual-campbell/

Good luck with the course, itīs lots of fun, and studying (at least if you havenīt flows SEPs for a couple of decades!).

[Fl1ingfrog]

I agree with Klimax. Ron Campbell's manual has never been superseded. The long briefings provided by Ron are perhaps the element that keeps it one step above the rest. These sections are invaluable to the instructor: ab-initio and later on, being a handy reference source when planning briefings or answering those awkward questions.

Of course being written some time ago the modern instrumentation and radio navigation aids are not within its scope. Nor of course is Threat and Error Management (TEM). Alan Newton makes the statement: "Threat Error Management (TEM), which replaces Airmanship, has been incorporated in all of the pre-flight briefings in each part".

TEM has not replaced 'airmanship' but forms an important part. TEM is a subsection of airmanship which covers much more in scope. TEM is a means of taking the required and specific elements of good airmanship, which are particularly relevant to the task, and putting them into a package, nothing more.

[Duchess_Driver]

About the only time I would advocate “teaching yourself” is when your instructor has a heart attack after departure….

I’ve seen so many self taught simulator pilots who think they understand what’s happening but have only managed to scratch the surface and when it all goes “Pete Tong” have no basics to go back to.

As to Campbell, I am fan, to an extent. Some of the material is dated or missing and the exercises don’t always fall with a logical way to teach. So, for an aide it’s great, but it does need to be blended with other material for completeness.

[Jhieminga]

There are plenty of different books and I would not be able to recommend just one, but Campbell's book is certainly one that I would recommend using. He covers a lot of the underlying theory for the different exercises in sufficient detail to be worth your time.

[DeltaT]

NZCAA Flight Instructor Briefings Free. Scroll to the bottom for the downloads

CASA Australian Flight Instructor Manual Free.

FAA USA Flight Instructors Handbook. Free

I know you said you found them, but really when it comes to instructing its a matter of being taught and practising the method in a classroom/plane of HOW to do it. Sometimes a book trying to convey this just doesn't cut it, but books like the above with the knowledge of WHAT it is you are trying to convey do that well.

[Dan Winterland]

when it comes to instructing its a matter of being taught and practising the method in a classroom/plane of HOW to do it.

This is where the On-Track manual excels.

[FIC101]

Originally Posted by Whopity

Campbell's manual is probably based upon RAF CFS notes from the mid 50s. A more up to date version from the 90s is available

The Campbell Manuals were based on FAA practice, written when Ron was CFI of Rogers Aviation at Cranfield who were Cessna main dealers. Ron was quite influenced by FAA practice, especially Kershener, and it was his suggestion that Slow Flying replace Spinning in the PPL syllabus.

One of the best uses of the Campbell Manual is as a doorstop! As Jeremy Prat, of AFE, said to me once, “Ron never used 3 words when 10 would do!” The AFE manuals were a welcome relief because handing a manual the size of Ron’s to a new student wasn’t exactly encouraging. In fact as a FIC candidate there is your first teaching lesson, simplify and teach in blocks. In the early stages of the syllabus Ex 1 to 14 you are still very much a salesperson as well as a teacher. It’s very easy to over complicate learning to fly, especially in the early stages.

The two main books in use on U.K. FI courses are Campbells and the Cole’s Patter Manual, both were written around 40 years ago and are dated but still useful with reservation. Both manuals concentrate on the technical skills of flying, today there is, or should be, much more emphasis on non technical skills (NOTECHS), TEM, CRM, SA and ADM.

The most important manual to be familiar with is the manual you will ultimately sell your student. The most popular U.K. manual is the AFE manual so that’s the manual I recommend on FI courses. There is sufficient and adequate information in there for you to learn to deliver a long or phase briefing. You will rarely be asked to deliver a long briefing anyway when qualified but pre flight briefings need to be honed to perfection.

I completly agree with Alan Newton that the term Airmanship is no longer relevant. In fact I watched Alan at a seminar ask 28 flying instructors what they thought the definition of airmanship was and not one FI knew! You will not see airmanship written on any of the On Track briefings nor on the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators briefings. The GAPAN briefings are some of the finest and unlike other material they are up to date with both a RAF Central Flying School and civilian school input. The problem with 40 year old material is that it no longer represents ‘best practice’ and it’s best practice that your student is paying for!

[Fl1ingfrog]

You will not see airmanship written on any of the On Track briefings nor on the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators briefings. The GAPAN briefings are some of the finest and unlike other material they are up to date with both a RAF Central Flying School and civilian school input.

GAPAN of course is now the Honorable Company of Air Pilots. I was very involved in the development and writing of the HCAP PPL briefing notes to which you refer. I can assure you that it was never intended to cast airmanship aside, far from it. The apparent clash between the philosophies of TEM and airmanship was central to our discussions. I am a strong advocate of bringing TEM practice and human Factors into the teaching of pilot training. Unfortunately TEM is held with a lot of suspicion because of its threat to airmanship which, in turn, has brought about a deep seated opposition to TEM as a concept. In my experience, this opposition is widespread within the FIC world. Alan Newtons comment as you have quoted it is a part of this problem.

You cannot replace 'airmanship so simply. Airmanship is too integral to all the aspects of flying and it is very much a part of the general conduct and best practice. Good things and pleasure exists in flying and, thank god, not only the errors and threats. The problem in our current times is that so many, like Alan, who I hold in high regard by the way, want to put everything into a labeled box and TEM conveniently allows you to do that. But, if TEM is to challenge airmanship then it will need an awful lot of boxes. So it is in exercising good airmanship that you will apply threat and error management tasks to ensure your flight is safe. Threats will be specific to your flight. Human error can also be identified specific to your flight and also be resolved before the event. Some threats and some errors will be generic to all flights but those that are not always encountered are particularly dangerous. Human error, in particular, is poorly understood and is treated as a poor cousin, and therefore gets little space amongst the 'threats'. TEM brings nothing new to what is already known and understood but I welcome the focus it brings.

Ron Campbell's manual is still very much part of it and every ab-initio instructor should own a copy as a reference source. Little has changed in the last 50 years that makes a difference as it is claimed.

[Alex Whittingham]

+1 for Al Newton

[Dan Winterland]

The best translation of Airmanship I can think of is 'common sense'. Unfortunately, it's hard to teach and even harder to elicit if the student has very little. TEM is a good way of addressing the issue as there are answers to the questions. But it doesn't cover everything and sometimes I find it hard not to use the 'A' word, even if it isn't 'woke'!

[FIC101]

As you will see in my post above, 28 FI’s during a FI forum couldn’t explain what Airmanship was! Common sense, to quote Dan, is not trying to teach something that you cannot fully understand or define.

[Whopity]

Seamanship is defined in a number of places - skill in and knowledge of the work of navigating, maintaining, and operating a vessel. Airmanship is the same process applied to an aircraft. but is not really defined anywhere. If we look back to Smith Barry, he was the real inventer of TEM however; it took another 78 years before a University reinvented the wheel.

[FIC101]

Originally Posted by Whopity

Seamanship is defined in a number of places - skill in and knowledge of the work of navigating, maintaining, and operating a vessel. Airmanship is the same process applied to an aircraft. but is not really defined anywhere. If we look back to Smith Barry, he was the real inventer of TEM however; it took another 78 years before a University reinvented the wheel.

Airmanship is very clearly defined by EASA and ICAO

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

The definition I used until I replaced Airmanship with TEM/CRM was the one written by Oxford Air Training.
To take the safest and most effective course of action in any given set of circumstances.

[Fl1ingfrog]

Th definition below is published by Skybrary.aero.

"Airmanship is the consistent use of good judgment and well-developed skills to accomplish flight objectives. This consistency is founded on a cornerstone of uncompromising flight discipline and is developed through systematic skill acquisition and proficiency. A high state of situational awareness completes the airmanship picture and is obtained through knowledge of one’s self, aircraft, environment, team and risk."

What does TEM as a philosophy bring to the above that isn't already there. Airmanship is not uniformly defined beyond the above definition that is true. Airmanship is how your culture and experience has taught you. That is how we used to learn of course. We learnt on the job or as an amateur from our club and close environment. That has been true in the training of doctors, lawyers, actors, artists, joiners and bricklayers as well as for pilots. Some how all this knowledge came together though. Wherever in the world you go so much is familiar with differences only in cultural detail. Cultures run deep and so does airmanship with it tendrils in everything which makes it hard to define.

What is TEM? I have never found a short simple definition that is different from that of airmanship. So FIC101 you have told us what you have left behind but can you tell us what you have now joined?.

[CaptEdmund]

One way of thinking about it is like crossing a road. Airmanship is like knowing your green cross code. It's what you teach yourself to do every time. You stop, look, and listen and check it's clear. TEM is about thinking about, and adapting to, situations. 'Threat' is thinking that, as you're about to cross a busy dual carriageway, maybe it'd be better managed by walking down the road a bit and using a bridge. 'Error' would be akin to saying, I'm in France and they drive on the other side of the road. By habit I tend to look the wrong way so I'll manage it by always pausing to remind myself to check more carefully.

[FIC101]

Originally Posted by Fl1ingfrog

Th definition below is published by Skybrary.aero.



So FIC101 you have told us what you have left behind but can you tell us what you have now joined?.

Oh, my favourite subject. I’ve been busy reading my 1985 Campbells Manual so I can answer your other statements.
As an aside, where you at Cranwell ( GAPAN) a few years back when the CAA staff examiner gave a talk on TEM, sadly it was of little value as he quickly got diverted onto HASELL checks being done before steep turning on a commercial skill test he had conducted. Another topic that seems to divide opinion.

Before starting on TEM I just wanted to make some comments on airmanship, after referring to my FIC notes. I write all my own FI course notes, as I believe all FIC instructors should do.

My main reason for removing airmanship from my briefings is because it smacks of an era and standard of flying instruction I personally do not wish to be involved with or more importantly, I do not want to teach. I want to get away from, what I see as, a dated approach to flying training.

TEM today, as presented, is actually a combination of CRM and TEM, add to that situation awareness and aviation decision making and I put all of that under the heading of ‘AIRCRAFT MANAGEMENT’ which is what I describe as NOTECHS, non technical skills. In my opinion the teaching of non technical skills are more important than technical skills. Virtually any FI can teach technical skill but that’s not the case with non technical skills, you can only teach what you know and what you buy into.

A few years ago I was delivering a FI course, at a very well known commercial training organisation, alongside a very well respected FIC instructor, who had spent many years at Oxford. He said to me one morning, “ I am not teaching TEM, it’s a load of bolox”! This is the attitude I want to get away from!

[Alex Whittingham]

Ah this is competency based training, or close to it. It has been tried several times in the last ten to fifteen years and often fails because the old crusty flight instructors (a) don't get it in the first place and (b) even if they do what they are told initially they revert to their old ways unless you constantly hammer them with instructor standardisation. This has a cost, and no-one pays for the benefit so too often it slips back into the old way of doing things. This is the core reason why competency based training as a concept is now being taught at ATPL level under the guise of KSA-100, eventually it will trickle through to the only sector yet to adopt competency based training. Yes, ab-initio flight instruction. The future is coming.