'Airmanship'

Thanks Allan,

I’ll have to go back to Brad’s book and read it properly. It is funny how “private money” keeps cropping up in British Military history in the 20 century…the development of the Merlin engine, Sidney cotton’s early antics etc etc….

Darryl

Curious about the 1810s citations in the Google books ngram graph. Very much out on their own.

I did wonder if it was a mistake in scanning (9 read as 8) but it seems a more basic error.

This book on google books was printed in 1917 but it seems they have picked the 1816 date from the page stating when the publisher was founded. It contains several references to the word and is likely responsible for the blip all on its own.

However, it is a catalogue of literature and even includes a couple of 17th century references to airmanship.

Looking at the two peaks in that graph, I wonder if the specific meaning of the word might have shifted by the time of the second usage peaK?

Tony – Admiralty did indeed have a lot of money to throw at aviation but the results (early seaplanes and their ironically-named airship “Mayfly”) were not initially good. Some of the private money, especially Frank McClean, arguably had a greater impact. It is well worth reading about McClean’s involvement in the development of Naval aviation.

AllanK

G’day James,

I’m afraid I’ve led you astray with “The Aeroplane”, what I have in fact is the first 10 issues of “Fly”.Having said thta, i’ve been through the volumes and can’t find “airmanship” in as much of a search as a night after a particularly hard day at the office would allow. I’ll have another go tomorrow or Wednesday.

Re Bluey:
Definitely NOT a planned excercise. The Cat was on its way back from a long range patrol, Bluey and his wingman (whose name escapes me just now), were returning from a training mission. However no pilot in his right mind, during wartime, would launch a fake attack on a tired crew (ANY crew??) without a good deal of “communication” first, be it radio or clear visual identification. They made several passes so it was not just a matter of “There is a Cat down there on the deck, let’s give ’em a fright…oh dear, water……” Very very interested to hear the story from your expert, I’m always interested in Truscott, primarily because of the PNG connection and the secret airbase built (and named in his honour) in the north of WA.

Admiralty/Engineers.
My field is WW1, so prewar is not my strong suit however the Engineers did start on aviation before the Navy. But it was the “senior service” that had the real money to throw at it and the airships of the Navy were the “big dog” in the house. The RNAS was formed before the RFC (but not long) and engaged agressively with the Government for funding priority and also made many back room overtures to gain control of the RFC…particularly before 1/4/18 when they tried to wrest control of the whole thing and make the merger a hostile takeover by the RNAS. However the Engineer’s Air Battalion was in existance 30 odd years before both, I believe.

cheers and best

Darryl

Thanks for the various comments and nice to see a new poster join us here (welcome SteveE).

‘TonyHill’ – thanks – I was wrong, I’ve now corrected the original post. Truscott’s death was the result of flying into the water on a dummy attack; I’ll check, but my understanding was it was a classic ‘fighter pilot sees another aircraft’ unofficial ‘bounce’, rather than planned or briefed. However as was the norm for aces in the era, it was all given the best gloss it could. When I next see my contact with the full SP on Truscott, I’ll ask. Look forward to your Aeroplane ref. (If only it was digitised like Flight.)

I’m puzzled by the references to the Admiralty ‘controlling’ aviation – the Royal Engineers, part of the Army wouldn’t agree, surely, or be under naval control, and the Royal Aero Club, founded in 1901 had a role at the level of issuing licences and thus an interest in airmanship, if not legislating themselves. The RFC was certainly part of the Army, while the Admiralty controlled the RNAS, so surely not up to 1918. Correction / clarification welcome.

Seamanship is an excellent angle, and I’d agree the ‘older brother’ but I think they are both also subordinate to ‘craftsmanship’ in another context (the opposite being the gamesmanship ref, another excellent point.)

Curious about the 1810s citations in the Google books ngram graph. Very much out on their own.

More welcome, please!

I certainly have references to “airmanship” in WW1 and I am almost certain (will check tonight) that the term is used in “The Aeroplane” magazine in 1908.
My guess is that the term originated regarding airships whilst aviation was still controlled by the Admiralty.

And on the subject…a small correction in honour of Bluey Truscott’s airmanship….he was not killed “beating up” an aerodrome. As far as I am aware he and another aircraft were making practice attacks on a low flying Catalina over the ocean. They had made a few without realising that the Catalina was making a slow descent. He impacted the ocean on his final pass. I have never seen any suggestion that this account is false and that he was killed over an airfield.

regards

Darryl

That wouldn’t be a profile of a certain Spitfire XII in the background would it? 🙂

It might be.

In the context of early flying here is how the British saw ‘Seamanship’ in 1908/1911.

This 425 page manual, volume I of II, belonged to my great grandfather and I see by the inscription in the front was given to me by my great aunt in 1954.

In would suggest therefore that in the early days, ‘Airmanship’ was just the knowledge of all things connected with flying.

Mark

That wouldn’t be a profile of a certain Spitfire XII in the background would it? 🙂

I’m inevitably reminded of The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship (or the Art of Winning Games without Actually Cheating) by Stephen Potter, dating from 1947, and School for Scoundrels the filmed version with Ian Carmichael, Alastair Sim and Terry-Thomas. Great books and a great film.

Gamesmanship and one-upmanship don’t have a lot to do with airmanship, but they do show that by 1947 the xxxx-manship term was meaning more than just following the rules and was well established enough to be satirised.

Purely personal view, but while the Navy chronologically is the senior service and therefore the root of a lot of cross service terminology (Sea/Air/Fire-manship) I know many in service who consider (despite there being manuals on *manship) that the skills refered to are of the “undefineable ability aquired by experience” that seperates book trained from practised talent…..

Mark, The Admiralty were in charge of military flying up to the birth of the RAF in 1918 so yes an extension of seamanship into flying .

In the context of early flying here is how the British saw ‘Seamanship’ in 1908/1911.

This 425 page manual, volume I of II, belonged to my great grandfather and I see by the inscription in the front was given to me by my great aunt in 1954.

It would suggest therefore that in the early days, ‘Airmanship’ was just the knowledge of all things connected with flying.

Mark

The late Darrel Stinton quotes: Airmanship is being “Street-wise” on the ground and in the air in all matters affecting the conduct of an effective flight with the highest level of safety for its intended purpose.
As a former gliding instructor I used this for my pupils. Try looking up the origins of “ab-initio” even harder to find.
I have an AP.129 RAF Flying Training Manual 1931. It says the object of airmanship is to teach pupil pilots how to handle their aeroplanes and engines correctly on the ground and in the air.
It would be interesting to view a copy of the AP.1732 Gosport patter book as airmanship in the RAF was largely developed by Smith-Barry and the Central Flying School.

Thanks for the responses. Good stuff, and the marine peer aspect is well articulated, most useful.

That’s where I started thinking about it, but I’m less sure now.

For instance discussions an airmanship today will probably touch on Kern’s 1996 Model (or similar).

Description here:
http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:airmanship-model

Diagram here:
http://winging-it.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/airmanship-excellence.html

Broadly, and this is thinking aloud, really – I’d think the component pieces of the model would be included in a good 1930s approach to airmanship. But the next step is I’m pretty sure they weren’t talked about – or thought about – in such a structure at least. How far were these concepts specified? If that’s correct, by not being articulated in that way, there is a substantive difference in understanding, and thus in application.

(Conversely, we could also argue such dreadful looking PowerPoint type graphics actually detract in the other direction from people learning capability, rather than pretty diagrams. A variant on the ‘flying the computer’ issue of the modern airline pilot, or adherence to H&S rules but not actual safety.)

So how about an experienced pilot in the 1930s flying at a couple of hundred feet over a large body of water in a single engine aircraft. They’d discounted any benefit of flying higher, though there are clear (now taught) safety advantages in doing so. Can we say this hypothetical pilot is ignorant, or displaying bad airmanship? (And is ignorance on such a flight effectively poor airmanship anyway? Are we making an anachronistic Catch 22?)

Specific or general comment most welcome!

Regards,

It was a termed used to evaluate RAF and RCAF pilots during WW2 and after. This is from a Canadian Spitfire pilot’s logbook. The same form appears a number of times during his WW2 years. It also appears in a similar form in his logbook from the 1950s when he was flying RCAF Sabres.

Airmanship isn’t just about following rules though, it’s about judgement. Aviation in, for example the 1930’s, was much less proscribed, but overall, good airmanship was similar to today. We are just circumscribed by rather more rules…..sadly.

Of course, if your pilot was flying over the Sea of Timor in a headwind, non-radio in the 1930’s, flying very low over the oggin would have made perfect sense…;)

Taking competence for granted – I accept that that is a bit dangerous and probably requires a debate of its own – the one feature central to the good practice of airmanship or seamanship or, indeed much else in life is consideration.

The consideration of the effects of one’s actions on the lives and well being of others is to my mind central to the effective practice of airmanship. Thought for the welfare of others; aviators, ATC, SAR, one’s friends and relatives should, if heeded, impose a layer of restriction on natural exuberance leading to the calm and considered approach implicit in airmanship.

I think that if one took a look at the civil aviation accident statistics for the last sixty years, removing those caused by mechanical failure would give a fairly strong indication that the balance of the accidents were the result of indifferent and inconsiderate airmanship – in one form or another.

Thanks for the responses. Good stuff, and the marine peer aspect is well articulated, most useful.

Certainly by the 1930’s, the use of the term and it’s meanings would be the same as today…

That’s where I started thinking about it, but I’m less sure now.

For instance discussions an airmanship today will probably touch on Kern’s 1996 Model (or similar).

Description here:
http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:airmanship-model

Diagram here:
http://winging-it.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/airmanship-excellence.html

Broadly, and this is thinking aloud, really – I’d think the component pieces of the model would be included in a good 1930s approach to airmanship. But the next step is I’m pretty sure they weren’t talked about – or thought about – in such a structure at least. How far were these concepts specified? If that’s correct, by not being articulated in that way, there is a substantive difference in understanding, and thus in application.

(Conversely, we could also argue such dreadful looking PowerPoint type graphics actually detract in the other direction from people learning capability, rather than pretty diagrams. A variant on the ‘flying the computer’ issue of the modern airline pilot, or adherence to H&S rules but not actual safety.)

So how about an experienced pilot in the 1930s flying at a couple of hundred feet over a large body of water in a single engine aircraft. They’d discounted any benefit of flying higher, though there are clear (now taught) safety advantages in doing so. Can we say this hypothetical pilot is ignorant, or displaying bad airmanship? (And is ignorance on such a flight effectively poor airmanship anyway? Are we making an anachronistic Catch 22?)

Specific or general comment most welcome!

Regards,

Snoopy do you mean that by the 30s airmanship would have been taken to include the courtesy and observance of the rules of the air as the term does today. Having asked that I have to say I have seen a few examples of the courtesy in the air being deficient or totally lacking. I refer to actions like helicopters going diagonally across the fixed wing circuit at about circuit height, not talking to anyone just intent on doing their own thing.

Certainly by the 1930’s, the use of the term and it’s meanings would be the same as today, in which context it appears in many books of that period. That it to say it was and is used to describe decisions and ability not only in handling, but generally in terms of making the correct, best decision for any particular situation. I think Military Discipline is quite another matter not of direct relevance to the term, other than the generality that following whatever set of rules is part of the job of any pilot.

I’ve got about ten years more ‘seamanship’ under my belt than I have ‘airmanship’. The two are related and Propstrike makes an effective point as such.

I think that it is easier to define seamanship. In so doing, extrapolation enables an understanding of airmanship. One major difference between the two is the likely outcome when ‘pushing the boundaries’. Pushing marine boundaries generally means that you will not be risking your life – not so with aviation. A popular feature of aviation clubroom premises is a wall plaque which begins – I can’t remember exactly – ‘unlike the sea, aviation is terribly unforgiving of any mistake, incapacity or neglect’ etc. etc.

That is one major variation between the two disciplines, the other being speed. In aviation, things – right things and wrong things – happen quickly, not so at sea. At sea, you’ve usually got more than one chance to put things right. Time to think, time to organise and time to repair.

Aviation requires a more swift appreciation of the problem and a much speedier response. When I’m sailing I can relax, when I’m flying, I can’t.

Thanks antoni, and Pondskater!

I think I’m running into an issue that what was meant by ‘airmanship’ used to be flying skill and not really the risk assessment and management regarded as critical today. Hmmm.

Interestingly there seems to be plenty of references as early as the 1900s, but something was going on in the 1810s, too! I think that meaning of ‘airmanship’ meant ‘getting it to go where you aimed’…

Google Books ngram viewer.

As ever heading in directions I never expected, and not just in a balloon! Further input welcome.

Regards,