Yes, I was. A hopeless presentation entitled 'Threat and Error Management'. As you say he went completely off point with his attempt to explain threats: a lot of time was spent on how to record flights in the log book, leaving everyone mystified. I remember calls of "what about errors". He really didn't understand 'errors'. I spent quite a long time with him afterward and on the subject of TEM he was clearly at sea. The opinion expressed to you by the Oxford instructor on another occasion is common place around the country. Until FIC instructors are on board nothing is going to change in GA.

Airmanship is a very human thing. It certainly embraces all parts of flying although it can be perceived differently person to person, place to place. To be able personalize it, I suppose, is part of its attraction albeit also its weakness. TEM is not conceived only for aviation but was designed to be used widely in industry, It is very much a team resource and so easily adapted to transport multi-crew operations. TEM is a series of threats and actions to mitigate and/or avoid + known potential errors and actions to also mitigate and avoid. It is a prerequisite that each threat and error is identified and agreed by all those involved for each event.

However you see it, care should be taken not to throw the baby out with the bath water. It is my believe that TEM brings a lot of value even for single crew but it fits under the general umbrella of airmanship..

Ron Campbell’s publication even back in the day was overcomplicated .
Alan Newton’s / On track publication for FI s is simple and concise with TEM highlighted to make briefings flow in easy to understand language .

Having looked at RC’s manual my comment is that it is out of date and no longer fit for purpose, unless you want to teach in the style of a 60s FI.

And what would be wrong with that?

Can you explain what is new?

An example: my wife was a primary school teacher and having had a gap from teaching found it difficult to get work. She was told in every quarter that things had moved on and she needed to retrain. A local headmaster said that was rubbish and he would give her some temp work. She asked him what was new. He said: " nothing, they've just turned the wheel and changed some names".

Having taught flying for 40 years I struggle to identify anything new other than the turning of the wheel and the changing of some names.

A great book and still relevant now. I was fortunate to do my FI in 1976 with Ron and his sidekick Ian Mackie. Great fun and incredible knowledge. Ron’s speciality in the Aerobat was a barrel roll while keeping his pipe the right way up. Also done with perfect 1g using a cup of coffee. A guru if ever there was one. I renewed my FI 2 years ago and used the Campbell book for my ground and air briefings. It worked really well, I am a big fan.

I might add as rereading the thread this comes up. I substituted TEM for Ron’s airmanship sections, that seemed to work quite well. You can make ppl training simple or difficult really dependant on the trainee. I’m a big believer in keeping ab initio flying training relatively simple and add the complexities later when more capacity shown.

Ive tried on at least 3 occasions to make replies to this post. I’ve contacted the Mods on at least 6 occasions and the webmaster 3 times. MY ACCOUNT ISN’T WORKING PROPERLY

>> that it is out of date and no longer fit for purpose, unless you want to teach in the style of a 60s FI. <<

>>> Ive tried on at least 3 occasions to make replies to this post. I’ve contacted the Mods on at least 6 occasions and the webmaster 3 times. MY ACCOUNT ISN’T WORKING PROPERLY <<<

Could it be, FIC101, that someone is helping you to not dig a bigger hole ??
Perhaps if you learn that a number of names on this thread have been around a long time that they may be more qualified to comment.
Basic flying training on basic aeroplanes hasn't and needn't change for a lot of sound reasons.
We don't have to have Garmin 2000 and diesel engines to turn out very competent students. This comes later.
Perhaps if you also remember that our basic training format owes a lot of its success to the system employed even further back by the civilian pre-WW2 German gliding schools. This was when they were prevented from developing powered aircraft under a decree from the Allies after WW1.
There wasn't and hasn't been any necessity to make drastic changes since. If it ain't broke, don't fix it........ It's a proven format.
If there had been, why would the Fleet Air Arm for example have continued to use Tiger Moths and Chipmunks for basic training well into the 70s ? Simply because they were the best aircraft in which to teach the BASIC skills so formulated in Ron Campbell's instructor Manual. You cannot simply leap into some high tech modern aIrcraft or particularly a simulator in this day and age and become "Ace of the Base" .......no matter how many games you can play on your iPhone !

I think you will find that FIC101 has a very poor opinion of "Tiger Moth instructors". Or was that when he was posting on a different forum under a different username? I cba to check.

Why do people continue to repeat the myth of the '1g barrel roll'?

Myth? You may have to explain that one.

It's done under positive g. But it will require vertical acceleration in excess of 1g. Therefore, it would be more accurate to call it a positive g barrel roll.

I agree. RC's book is a great thorough reference book to have on the shelf and look things up in from time to time - but it's far too complicated to be a text book for would be instructors and I was dismayed when I thought I'd need to know it all to become an instructor (turned out I didn't).

if I have to explain I suggest you go back to basics/first principles - Newton 1 and 2 for starters.

quite! Thanks.

Let’s go with positive G barrel roll then, I can live with that ;). Depending on your entry attitude and speed the needed vertical acceleration may be significant, or higher than but not that far away from 1G, and as no one thought to have an accurate data logger on board for Bob Hoover or Ron Campbell’s demos, we’ll never know how close he was to 1G… or how far away from it.

Of course guys you are absolutely correct in saying that it is a positive g manoeuvre probably more than 1g. In my enthusiasm to endorse Ron’s book, amazing flying skill, knowledge and sense of humour my own physics knowledge deserted me…

Great days, though, much missed. Have a merry one…