Every flight has hazards and some level of risk associated with it. It is critical that pilots and especially learners can differentiate in
advance between a low-risk flight and a high-risk flight, and then establish a review process and develop risk mitigation strategies to
address flights throughout that range.
For the single pilot, assessing risk is not as simple as it sounds. For example, the pilot acts as his or her own quality control in making
decisions. If a fatigued pilot who has flown 16 hours is asked if he or she is too tired to continue flying, the answer may be no. Most
pilots are goal oriented and, when asked to accept a flight, there is a tendency to deny personal limitations while adding weight to
issues not germane to the mission. For example, pilots of helicopter emergency services (EMS) have been known to make flight
decisions that add significant weight to the patient’s welfare. These pilots add weight to intangible factors (the patient in this case)
and fail to appropriately quantify actual hazards such as fatigue or weather when making flight decisions. The single pilot deals with
the intangible factors that may draw one into a hazardous position. Therefore, he or she has a greater vulnerability than a full crew.
Examining National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports and other accident research can help a pilot learn to assess risk
more effectively. For example, the accident rate during night VFR decreases by nearly 50 percent once a pilot obtains 100 hours and
continues to decrease until the 1,000- hour level. The data suggest that for the first 500 hours, pilots flying VFR at night might want
to establish higher personal limitations than are required by the regulations and, if applicable, apply instrument flying skills in this
environment.
Several risk assessment models are available to assist in the process of assessing risk. The models, all taking slightly different
approaches, seek a common goal of assessing risk in an objective manner.
The most basic tool is the risk matrix. [Figure 1-4] It assesses two items: the likelihood of an event occurring and the consequence of
that event.
Figure 1-4. This risk matrix can be used for almost any operation by assigning likelihood and severity. In the case presented, the pilot
assigned the likelihood of occasional and the severity as catastrophic falls in the high-risk area.
Likelihood of an Event
Likelihood is nothing more than taking a situation and determining the probability of its occurrence. It is rated as probable ,
occasional, remote, or improbable. For example, a pilot is flying from point A to point B (50 miles) in marginal visual flight rules
(MVFR) conditions. The likelihood of encountering potential instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) is the first question the
pilot needs to answer. The experiences of other pilots, coupled with the forecast, might cause the pilot to assign “occasional” to
determine the probability of encountering IMC.
The following are guidelines for making assignments.
⦁ Probable—an event will occur several times.
⦁ Occasional— an event will probably occur sometime.
⦁ Remote— an event is unlikely to occur but is possible.
⦁ Improbable— an event is highly unlikely to occur.
Severity of an Event
The next element is the severity or consequence of a pilot’s action(s). It can relate to injury and/or damage. If the individ ual in the
example above is not an instrument flight rules (IFR) pilot, what are the consequences of encountering inadvertent IMC? In this case,
because the pilot is not IFR rated, the consequences could be fatal. The following are guidelines for this assignment.
⦁ Catastrophic—results in fatalities, total loss
⦁ Critical— severe injury, major damage
⦁ Marginal—m inor injury, minor damage
⦁ Negligible—less than minor injury, less than minor system damage
Assessing risk may be the most difficult part of risk management and applying the terms described above to specific risks takes some
practice. Once you have assessed risk likelihood and severity for all identified risks, you can readily classify the overall risk level for
that hazard. For example, simply connecting the two factors as shown in Figure 1- 4 indicates the risk is high and the pilot may
consider whether to not fly or fly only after finding ways to mitigate, eliminate, or control the risk.
Risk
The final step in risk management is mitigation, which is the payoff for accomplishing the entire risk management process and will
often allow for mission accomplishment (the reason most pilots fly). By effectively mitigating known risks to acceptable levels, pilots
can complete their planned flights safely or ensure that alternate options are selected for those rare occasions when the planned or
ongoing flight cannot be completed.
There are almost an infinite number of actions you can take, depending on the nature of the hazard or risk. For example, the pilot
flying from point A to point B (50 miles) in MVFR conditions has several ways to reduce risk:
⦁ Drive.
⦁ Wait for the weather to improve to good visual flight rules (VFR) conditions.
⦁ Take a pilot who is rated as an IFR pilot.
⦁ Delay the flight.
⦁ Cancel the flight.
Risk mitigation often begins days, sometimes weeks, before a planned flight. For example, a pilot flying a single-engine piston
aircraft without ice protection lives in the Pacific Northwest and is planning a trip in January for a scheduled speech. While keeping
the long-range weather forecast in mind, planning in advance gives the pilot several options to mitigate risk:
⦁ Book commercial flight/transfer the risk to the airlines.
⦁ Change the date of the event to accommodate weather.
⦁ Cancel flight altogether.
⦁ Depart a day early from the Pacific Northwest to avoid an incoming low-pressure area that will bring low
IFR and certain icing conditions.
After all mitigating steps have been completed, you may confront the possibility that a flight cannot be made or continued for a
variety of reasons not only for yourself but also for your passengers. Remember that many pilots have ignored or failed to mitigate
serious and high-risk hazards, and a tragic fatal accident is all too often the result.
Flight Risk Assessment Tools
Because every flight has some level of risk, it is critical that pilots can differentiate, in advance, between a low risk flight and a high-
risk flight, establish a review process, and develop risk mitigation strategies. A Flight Risk Analysis Tool (FRAT) enables proactive
hazard identification, is easy to use, and can visually depict risk. It is a tool many pilots use to make better go/no-go decisions.
Why Should I Use a FRAT?
“In the thick” is no time to try to mitigate a potentially hazardous outcome. When preparing for a flight or maintenance task, pilots
and maintenance technicians may set aside time to stop and think about the hazards involved.
Just thinking about this task may not consider the actual risk exposure. We may allow our personal desires to manipulate our risk
assessment in order to meet personal goals. A formal process using pen and paper gives a perspective on the entire risk picture and is
a good way to make a thorough analysis.
A risk assessment tool allows pilots to see the risk profile of a flight in its planning stages. Each pilot determines an acceptable level
of risk for flight based on the type of operation, environment, aircraft used, training, and overall flight experience. When the risk for a
flight exceeds the acceptable level, the hazards associated with that risk may be further evaluated and the risk reduced. A higher risk
flight might not be operated if the hazards cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level.
What Do I Do with My Score?
When using a FRAT, the pilot creates numerical thresholds that trigger additional levels of scrutiny prior to a go/no-go decision for
the flight. These thresholds help ensure that the safety standards of each individual flight are maintained. However, it is important that
the pilot create realistic thresholds. If every flight is within the acceptable range under any condition, it is likely that the thresholds
have not been set correctly.
An effective FRAT has at least three possible score ranges. These are often grouped into green, yellow and red sections.
⦁ RED (HIGH): Risk likelihood and/or severity is normally reduced to lower levels before departure. Unless
the risks involved in the flight can be mitigated (different crew/adding a copilot, better equipment, delayed
launch time…) flight cancellation occurs.
⦁ YELLOW (SERIOUS): Risk likelihood and/or severity needs reduction to lower levels before departure.
Begin by mitigating some of the higher scoring items, and consider consulting with a flight instructor or
mechanic
if the score remains in the yellow.
⦁ GREEN (MEDIUM): Flight can depart or continue, but risk severity and/or likelihood may be reduced.
No FRAT can anticipate all the hazards that may impact a particular flight but there are some common hazards that GA pilots
encounter regularly. The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) has developed a free online Flight Risk Awareness Tool
(FRAT) to help flightcrews quickly assess threats to safety for a particular flight. Developed as part of a study, the FRAT presents
operators with an easy-to-understand summary of the risks associated with each mission. No identifying data is collected to produce a
risk analysis and pilots can try the tool before putting it to use on a live flight. This downloadable tool presents pilots with an easy- to-
understand summary of the risks associated with each flight and can be found at https://nbaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flight-
risk-assessment-tool.pdf
Three-P Model for Pilots
As we have just learned with the Identify, Assess, & Mitigate model, risk management is a decision-making process designed to
identify or perceive hazards systematically, assess the degree of risk associated with a hazard, and determine the best course of action
to mitigate the risk. For example, the Perceive, Process, Perform (3P) model for aeronautical decision-making (ADM) offers a
simple, practical, and structured way for pilots to manage risk. [Figure 1-5]
Figure 1-5. 3P Model (Perceive, Process, and Perform).
To help understand the 3P model, it may be easier to relate this concept to the three steps of the Risk Management Process discussed
earlier in this chapter. Recall that these three steps include identifying the risk, assessing the risk, and finally mitigating the risk.
Imagine the 3P model in parallel to those three steps by perceiving (identifying the risk), processing (assessing the risk), and
performing (mitigating the risk).
To use the 3P model, the pilot:
⦁ Perceives the given set of circumstances for a flight.
⦁ Processes by evaluating the impact of those circumstances on flight safety.
⦁ Performs by implementing the best course of action.
In the first step, the goal is to develop situational awareness by perceiving hazards, which are present events, objects, or
circumstances that could contribute to an undesired future event. In this step, the pilot systematically identifies and lists hazards
associated with all aspects of the flight: pilot, aircraft, environment, and external pressures. It is important to consider how individual
hazards might combine. Consider, for example, the hazard that arises when a new instrument pilot with no experience in actual
instrument conditions wants to make a cross-country flight to an airport with low ceilings in order to attend an important business
meeting.
In the second step, the goal is to process this information to determine whether the identified hazards constitute risk, which is defined
as the future impact of a hazard that is not controlled or eliminated. The degree of risk posed by a given hazard can be measured in
terms of exposure (number of people or resources affected), severity (extent of possible loss), and probability (the likelih ood that a
hazard will cause a loss). If the hazard is low ceilings, for example, the level of risk depends on a number of other factors, such as
pilot training and experience, aircraft equipment, and fuel capacity.
In the third step, the goal is to perform by taking action to eliminate hazards or mitigate risk, and then continuously evaluate the
outcome of this action. With the example of low ceilings at destination, for instance, the pilot can perform good ADM by selecting a
suitable alternate, knowing where to find good weather, and carrying sufficient fuel to reach it. This course of action would mitigate
the risk. The pilot also has the option to eliminate it entirely by waiting for better weather.
Once the pilot has completed the 3P decision process and selected a course of action, the process begins again because the set of
circumstances brought about by the course of action requires analysis. The decision-making process is a continuous loop of
perceiving, processing, and performing.
It is never too early to start teaching risk management. Using the 3P model gives flight instructors a tool to teach them a structured,
efficient,
and systematic way to identify hazards, assess risk, and implement effective risk controls. Practicing risk management
needs to be as automatic in general aviation (GA) flying as basic aircraft control. Consider making the 3P discussion a
standard feature of the preflight discussion. As is true for other flying skills, risk management habits are best developed through
repetition and consistent adherence to specific procedures.
Hazard List for Aviation Technicians
AMTs should learn about risk management early in training. Instructors tasked with integrating risk management into instruction can
turn to hazard assessments that identify the safety risks associated with the facility being used, the tools used in the procedure, and/or
the job being performed.
The process for identifying hazards can be accomplished through the use of checklists, lessons learned, compliance
inspections/audits, accidents/near misses, regulatory developments, and brainstorming sessions. For example, aviation acciden t
reports from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) can be used to generate discussions pertaining to faulty maintenance
that led to aircraft accidents. All available sources should be used for identifying, characterizing, and controlling safety risks.
The 3P model can also be adapted for use in a nonflight environment, such as a maintenance facility. For example, the AMT
perceives a hazard, processes its impact on shop or personnel safety, and then performs by implementing the best course of action to
mitigate the perceived risk.
Pilot Self-Assessment
Setting personal minimums is an important step in mitigating risk, and safe pilots know how to properly self-assess. For example, in
the opening scenario, the aircraft Mary plans to fly may have a maximum crosswind component of 15 knots listed in the aircraft flight
manual (AFM), but she only has experience with 10 knots of direct crosswind. It could be unsafe to exceed a 10 knot-crosswind
component without additional training. Therefore, the 10 knot- crosswind experience level should be Mary’s personal limitation until
additional training with Daniel provides her with additional experience for flying in crosswinds that exceed 10 knots.
Pilots in training should be taught that exercising good judgment begins prior to taking the controls of an aircraft. Often, pilots
thoroughly check their aircraft to determine airworthiness, yet do not evaluate their own fitness for flight. Just as a checklist is used
when preflighting an aircraft, a personal checklist based on such factors as experience, currency, and comfort level can help
determine if a pilot is prepared for a particular flight. The FAA’s “Personal Minimums Checklist” located in Appendix D is an
excellent tool for pilots to use in self-assessment. This checklist reflects the PAVE approach to risk mitigation discussed in the
previous paragraphs.
Worksheets for a more in- depth risk assessment are located in the “FAA/Industry Training Standards Personal and Weather Risk
Assessment Guide” located online at www.faa.gov. This guide is designed to assist pilots in developing personal standardized
procedures for accomplishing PIC responsibilities and in making better preflight and inflight weather decisions. Flight instructors
should stress that frequent review of the personal guide keeps the information fresh and increases a pilot’s ability to recognize the
conditions in which a new risk assessment should be made, a key element in the decision-making process.
Situational Awareness
Situational awareness is the accurate perception and understanding of all the factors and conditions within the four fundamental risk
elements that affect safety before, during, and after the flight. Maintaining situational awareness requires an understanding of the
relative significance of these factors and their future impact on the flight. When situationally aware, the pilot has an overview of the
total operation and is not fixated on one perceived significant factor. Some of the elements inside the aircraft to be considered are the
status of aircraft systems, pilot, and passengers. In addition, an awareness of the environmental conditions of the flight, such as spatial
orientation of the aircraft and its relationship to terrain, traffic, weather, and airspace should be maintained.
To maintain situational awareness, all of the skills involved in ADM are used. For example, an accurate perception of the pil ot’s
fitness can be achieved through self-assessment and recognition of hazardous attitudes. A clear assessment of the status of navigation
equipment can be obtained through workload management and establishing a productive relationship with ATC can be accomplished
by effective resource use.
Obstacles to Maintaining Situational Awareness
Many obstacles exist that can interfere with a pilot’s ability to maintain situational awareness. For example, fatigue, stress, or work
overload can cause the pilot to fixate on a single perceived important item rather than maintaining an overall awareness of the flight
situation. A contributing factor in many accidents is a distraction, which diverts the pilot’s attention from monitoring the instruments
or scanning outside the aircraft. Many flight deck distractions begin as a minor problem, such as a gauge that is not reading correctly,
but result in accidents as the pilot diverts attention to the perceived problem and neglects to properly control the aircraft.
Fatigue, discussed as an obstacle to learning, is also an obstacle to maintaining situational awareness. It is a threat to aviation safety
because it impairs alertness and performance. [Figure 1-6] The term is used to describe a range of experiences from sleepy, or tired,
to exhausted. Two major physiological phenomena create fatigue: sleep loss and circadian rhythm disruption.
Figure 1-6. Fatigue is a threat to aviation safety because it impairs alertness and performance.
Fatigue is a normal response to many conditions common to flight operations because characteristics of the flight deck environment,
such as low barometric pressure, humidity, noise, and vibration, make pilots susceptible to fatigue. The only effective treatment for
fatigue is adequate sleep. As fatigue progresses, it is responsible for increased errors of omission, followed by errors of commission,
and microsleeps, or involuntary sleep lapses lasting from a few seconds to a few minutes. For obvious reasons, errors caused by these
short absences can have significant hazardous consequences in the aviation environment.
Sleep-deprived pilots may not notice sleepiness or other fatigue symptoms during preflight and departure flight operations. Once
underway and established on altitude and heading, sleepiness and other fatigue symptoms tend to manifest themselves. Extreme
fatigue can cause uncontrolled and involuntary shutdown of the brain. Regardless of motivation, professionalism, or training, an
individual who is extremely sleepy can lapse into sleep at any time, despite the potential consequences of inattention. There are a
number of countermeasures for coping with fatigue, as shown in Figure 1-7.
Figure 1-7. Countermeasures for coping with fatigue.
Complacency presents another obstacle to maintaining situational awareness. Defined as overconfidence from repeated experience on
a specific activity, complacency has been implicated as a contributing factor in numerous aviation accidents and incidents. Like
fatigue, complacency reduces the pilot’s effectiveness in the flight deck. However, complacency is harder to recognize than fatigue,
since everything is perceived to be progressing smoothly. Highly reliable automation has been shown to induce overconfidence and
complacency. This can result in a pilot following the instructions of the automation even when common sense suggests otherwise. If
the pilot assumes the autopilot is doing its job, he or she does not crosscheck the instruments or the aircraft’s position frequently. If
the autopilot fails, the pilot may not be mentally prepared to fly the aircraft manually. Instructors should be especially alert to
complacency in learners with significant flight experience. For example, a pilot receiving a flight review in a familiar aircraft may be
prone to complacency.
Advanced avionics have created a high degree of redundancy and dependability in modern aircraft systems, which can
promote complacency and inattention. During flight training, the flight instructor should emphasize that routine flight operations
may
lead to a sense of complacency, which can threaten flight safety by reducing situational awareness.
By asking about positions of other aircraft in the traffic pattern, engine instrument indications, and the aircraft’s locatio n in relation to
references on a chart, the flight instructor can determine if the learner is maintaining situational awareness. The flight instructor can
also
attempt to focus the learner’s attention on an imaginary problem with the communication or navigation equipment. The
flight instructor should point out that situational awareness is not being maintained if the learner diverts too much attention away
from
other tasks, such as controlling the aircraft or scanning for traffic. These are simple exercises that can be done throughout
flight training, which help emphasize the importance of maintaining situational awareness.
Operational Pitfalls
There are numerous classic behavioral traps that can ensnare the unwary pilot. Pilots, particularly those with considerable experience,
try to complete a flight as planned, please passengers, and meet schedules. This basic drive to demonstrate achievements can have an
adverse effect on safety and can impose an unrealistic assessment of piloting skills under stressful conditions. These tendencies
ultimately may bring about practices that are dangerous and sometimes illegal and may lead to a mishap. Learners develop awareness
and learn to avoid many of these operational pitfalls through effective ADM training. The scenarios and examples provided by
instructors during ADM instruction should involve these pitfalls. [Figure 1-8]
Single-Pilot Resource Management (SRM)
Single pilot resource management (SRM) is defined as the art and science of managing all the resources (both onboard the aircraft
and from outside sources) available to a single pilot (prior to and during flight) to ensure the successful outcome of the flight. SRM
includes the concepts of Aeronautical Decision-Making (ADM), Risk Management (RM), Task Management (TM), Automation
Management (AM), Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) Awareness, and Situational Awareness (SA). SRM training helps the pilo t
maintain situational awareness by managing the automation and associated aircraft control and navigation tasks. This enables the pilot
to accurately identify, assess, and manage risk and make accurate and timely decisions.
SRM is all about helping pilots learn how to gather information, analyze it, and make decisions. Although the flight is coordinated by
a single person and not an onboard flightcrew, the use of available resources such as air traffic control (ATC) and Flight Service
replicates the principles of CRM.
Figure 1-8. All experienced pilots have fallen prey to, or have been tempted by, one or more of these tendencies in their flying
careers.