SAFETY SITREP Safety-Related Information and Resources from the Vertical Aviation Safety Team WARRANTED RISK
Government, military, and public safety aviation exist because
society occasionally
needs professionals to do what others are unable or unwilling to do, all while accepting elevated levels of known risk.
We understand why public
safety operators accept high- risk missions. The questions that remain are:
• How do these operators manage elevated risk?
• What factors come into play when making go/no- go decisions?
Traditional risk management systems focus on two variables: probability (likelihood) and severity
commercial
(consequence). operators,
LOOKING BEYOND PROBABILITY AND SEVERITY IN PUBLIC SAFETY AVIATION •
driven by noble intentions or heightened emotions. The resulting target fixation or mission mentality all too often leads to preventable tragedy.
Most agencies have formal methods
for assessing
Few have formal methods for evaluating gain. Instead, gain frequently enters the equation informally
through risk. Unwarranted risk
Currier asserts, “If bad things happen while you are conducting a proper mission in a professional manner, leadership
at all stand behind you.” a frantic
call, driving rushed or poor decisions. Examples may include:
• •
•
For that
keeps things simple. If the risk is too high, the flight crew must reduce the risk to an acceptable level or avoid it altogether.
Nothing for
readers
groundbreaking who
consider
themselves proficient pilots and flight planners. However, for those who conduct government, military, or public safety operations, does mission type factor into your risk-based policy and pre-flight decisions?
If not, perhaps it should.
What is often absent from the formal risk assessment process is a third variable: Gain.
Public safety organizations would do well to incorporate gain into doctrine, policy, and mission planning because pilots are likely already considering it on the fly, literally. Without structured guidance, this creates
the 18 conditions May/June 2026 for poor dynamic decision-making “There’s a child involved.”
“The suspect is considered armed.”
“The fire is threatening critical infrastructure.”
• “Someone may still be alive.”
Responding to these calls is routine,
but what process used to justify launch?
One of the Coast Guard’s most celebrated and decorated aviators, Vice Admiral John Currier, challenged his service’s flight crews to consider whether the risk they accept is warranted when weighed against the potential gain. Currier asserted that Coast Guard crews must always
consider the gain:
mission value, public benefit, lives saved, property protected, or threats mitigated.
His article, “Risk Management for the Proficient Operator,” published in the 2013 issue of the Naval Institute Proceedings, recognized that not all risks are equal because not all missions are
equal. He argued that
professional operators must differentiate between:
• Manageable risk • Warranted risk is
Is gain influencing your crews’ decisions? Almost certainly. The question is whether your organization acknowledges it.
When flight crews respond to a missing child, an active shooter, a stranded hiker,
or
a mariner in distress, are they only evaluating probability and severity? Or are they also considering the potential gain of a successful mission?
If gain is already part of the decision-making
process,
is it addressed in policy, training, and doctrine? Is it
understood consistently
across the organization? Or does each crew develop its own interpretation based on experience, culture, and circumstance?
Two crews facing identical circumstances may reach different conclusions regarding
That philosophy now resides on page one of the Coast Guard’s Air Operations Manual, which states:
“In the operational environment, mission demands may require on-scene deviation from prescribed instructions or policy when, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, such deviation is necessary for flight safety or the saving of human life.”
The Missing Variable levels will
mission acceptance. One may launch. The other may decline. Neither decision is necessarily wrong.
The concern is whether both crews are applying the same organizational framework, or whether they are making ad hoc or subjective risk-versus- gain calculations without clear guidance.
Admiral Currier’s concept of warranted risk recognized that some missions carry extraordinary
value, but
that value does not grant unlimited permission to accept extraordinary risk.
If your crews are already making risk-versus-gain calculations in the cockpit, perhaps it is time to ensure that your organization’s policies, training programs, and leadership expectations provide a common framework for
correctly is the making those
decisions. “Discussing these parameters at 0 AGL and 0 knots
successful missions
cornerstone for
your
crews. “They need to know what your organization will, and will not, accept,” said Mark Bruno, the Coast Guard’s current chief of safety and environmental health and a former MH-65D pilot.
Disclaimer: Each organization must establish a unique risk management policy based on its underlying doctrine, legal authorities, operational environment, and mission requirements.
of
By Chris Hill, senior director–safety, Vertical Aviation International
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102
