Acceptable Risk Calculation or Emotion?
By Randy Rowles
As a child, the value of the risk we would incur doing an activity was often measured by the spectators involved. Jumping a bicycle over a ditch brought a certain amount of fear, however the broken arm received as a result of such an attempt was looked upon as a badge of honor. Even as children, we justified risk through our belief that we could do what others could not or would not do.
Today we assess flight risk through Flight Risk Assessment Tools (FRAT) and other various risk-based systems to aid our decision-making when determining whether the risk incurred during a flight is acceptable or not. In many cases, the risk assessment scoring mechanism will reflect a color-coded or numeric-based indicator of the risk involved.
Once risk is assessed and determined to be acceptable, we often cite that we’re “green” and all activity can move forward without further concern. In some cases, the risk assessment reflects an elevated risk level and requires some level of risk mitigation. In these cases, the score may receive a color of “yellow,” which requires further planning and in many cases approval from others within the organization. Lastly, an unacceptable risk score receives a color of “red.”
Although effective to identify, assess, and mitigate acceptable risk, a simple calculation does not remove the human emotion from the equation. FRAT and other risk assessment tools provide an excellent mechanism to work through the external factors within a flight decision. There are many factors that drive pilots to make decisions or even question the outcome of a risk assessment tool. As humans, our innate
Randy Rowles has been an FAA pilot examiner for 20 years for all helicopter certificates and ratings. He holds an FAA Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificate, NAFI Master Flight Instructor designation, and was the 2013 recipient of the HAI Flight Instructor of the Year Award. Rowles is currently the owner of the Helicopter Institute. He can be reached at
randyrowlesdpe@gmail.com
belief that we are capable of something is compelling in the moment. These type of pressures may be shared among personality types, although they are often driven by internal factors that are as unique as fingerprints.
A desire to fly is the basis for a person to become a pilot. When this desire engages the corporate world, additional stressors are introduced and may influence a pilot’s decision-making process. The desire to fly, coupled with a desire to perform well based upon company- related drivers such as increased flight volume or revenue, may have devastating consequences.
Overcoming emotional drivers when determining acceptable risk is simply a life-or-death activity. Within many of the accidents in our industry, we find the pilot accepted or continued beyond the point of no return with complete knowledge and understanding of the potential risk involved. In many cases, the risks identified in the FRAT process knowingly increased during the flight, yet the pilot continued. When risk is identified, assessed, potentially mitigated, and then accepted, every decision from that point is based upon the original level of risk. When any element of risk occurs on a flight that was not captured within the assessment, stop the flight and reassess.
Dynamic or in-real-time risk recalculation is often blurred by having already accepted the flight; it’s a purely emotional consideration and often the deadliest! Whether you’re a flight instructor, air medical pilot, or flying your personal helicopter, having the ability to stop the flight and accept dynamic changes, no matter how far into the flight you are, is the only clear path to survival!
Simply stated, the level of acceptable risk is determined by calculation. However, the risk engaged is always emotional. There is no badge of honor in a self-inflicted crash!
If you have any comments or questions, please let me know at
randyrowlesdpe@gmail.com
86 Mar/Apr 2019
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
