Formal risk assessment methods?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that if your question is as a result of anything other than idle curiousity then you may wish to consider whether flying is really for you as you should be in a permanent state of risk analysis/decision making/review.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of crap! Why would you willingly bog yourself down in bureaucratic rubbish that has no place in the real world? Not everything you do has to be dictated by lawyers and no-win, no-fee parasitic toilet paper deposits. I despair 
.
.
My sentiments exactly, when I first read about this stuff...
That, in brief, is why I do not consider the professional and commercial rule books as of much help to private pilots.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kernow
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
References to flight safety ('cause that is what risk assessment is fundamentally all about) being a 'load of crap' really do make me shudder.
Someone else said that it was all 'common sense' - sadly common sense is what makes small children chase balls into the road - you need to know about risk and how to understand whether it is important to you at a given time. That's the un-common sense bit that has to be taught to pilots to stop them for example pressing on into bad weather beyond their abilities.
Risk assessment needs to be understood, and that doesn't mean taking the books into the cockpit - just the understanding. Knowledge about Threat and Error Management (TEM) (my previous comment) is IMHO a useful way of explaining Risk Assessment in a way that pilots understand and it also includes problem resolution which is really quite useful in the cockpit.
At the right time it is ok to chase balls into the road - when the risk is minimised (i.e. when the traffic isn't there). It takes a smart kid to know that but he has to know and understand what the risk was in the first place.
Someone else said that it was all 'common sense' - sadly common sense is what makes small children chase balls into the road - you need to know about risk and how to understand whether it is important to you at a given time. That's the un-common sense bit that has to be taught to pilots to stop them for example pressing on into bad weather beyond their abilities.
Risk assessment needs to be understood, and that doesn't mean taking the books into the cockpit - just the understanding. Knowledge about Threat and Error Management (TEM) (my previous comment) is IMHO a useful way of explaining Risk Assessment in a way that pilots understand and it also includes problem resolution which is really quite useful in the cockpit.
At the right time it is ok to chase balls into the road - when the risk is minimised (i.e. when the traffic isn't there). It takes a smart kid to know that but he has to know and understand what the risk was in the first place.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting comments, after reading through this I must confess I am a bit ignorant when it comes to being able to understand all the nifty looking and sounding acronyms so loved in aviation.
I kept things very simple in my risk management arena when I flew for a living once I got past learning to read and write I became a pilot and from that point on I tried not to make the same mistake twice and for me it worked.
Now that I am retired I have no intention of learning all the new buzz words and reprogramming my mind to the bureaucrat micro manage thinking process.
I kept things very simple in my risk management arena when I flew for a living once I got past learning to read and write I became a pilot and from that point on I tried not to make the same mistake twice and for me it worked.
Now that I am retired I have no intention of learning all the new buzz words and reprogramming my mind to the bureaucrat micro manage thinking process.
References to flight safety ('cause that is what risk assessment is fundamentally all about) being a 'load of crap' really do make me shudder.
Show me anyone who is employing formal risk assessment methods before every flight, especially in private flying, and I'll show you someone who should not be flying an aeroplane (or any aerial conveyance). Come to think of it, they're probably spending so much time filling out pointless forms that they don't have time to fly anyway!
Moderator
When I'm passenger on a long haul flight I'd rather have the crew up front read TEM handbooks than dying of boredom.
Every flight I do is preceded by a risk assessment, and risk mitigation consideration. Generally, it's a very informal, and momentary process, conducted from memory, as I walk to the plane. If I'm running to the plane, I always take an extra moment to wonder about what I'm forgetting, 'cause I'm rushing!
When I'm flying something that has never flown before, the risk assessment is a formal documented and briefed process. There are many things which can go other than expected, no matter what kind of flight. Today's three evaluation flights of a new modification, included a briefing which I presented to the other pilot, and observer, with respect to possible departure from controlled flight, and separation of the external modification. Mitigation means were in place for both.
There will always be things which surprise pilots in flight. Our duty is to employ the resources we have provided ourselves, prevent things getting worse, and to learn, and remember to get it even better next time.
Today's briefing included specific instructions to the other two crew members with respect to the possible loss of the mod in flight. I learned these mitigation means as a result of a previous flight, which did not go as planned, and attracted a lot of unwanted attention!
My risk assessment method, where formal use is appropriate, is developed from my experience, and supplemented by guidance and lessons for many other wise aviators who have gone before. It is documented and either self, or crew briefed, and a record kept. Where informal is adequate, the process is still there, just way simpler. I'm trying to put off as long as possible, having the authorities ask me "why did you not have a plan to prevent that?".
Oh, and today's flights went very well, 65 pounds of external equipment to Mach .55, among many other evaluation elements, and they call what I do "work"!
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the place (if there is one) for a formal risk assessment is in making a generic RA of the activity itself, and in doing so make a list of the required controls to make the activity safe?
Then, when it comes to actually doing it, you check that the controls are in place, and if so, you do it; if not not, at least until you have reviewed the RA.
Those of us involved in RA for youth activities - schools, cadet forces, &c - do it like that, or we'd never do anything.
Tim
Then, when it comes to actually doing it, you check that the controls are in place, and if so, you do it; if not not, at least until you have reviewed the RA.
Those of us involved in RA for youth activities - schools, cadet forces, &c - do it like that, or we'd never do anything.
Tim
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, I would agree with that, and it is interesting to see that all those of us who have actually bothered figuring out what these theories are about seem to agree with that view.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kernow
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I understand Billiebob's dislike of "the attempt by a bunch of unemployable geeks, with degrees in underwater basket weaving, to surround a well proven technique to enhance flight safety in management yuckspeak and present it as something new." The problem is how do you teach the knowledge that is AIRMANSHIP in this day and age?
When Smith Barry was around airmanship was mostly gained by watching others make mistakes (and sometimes dying), making mistakes yourself and hands on training. They were simple machines flown with simple procedures. Airmanship was very much something acquired through experience.
Is still possible to learn Airmanship that way nowadays?
I think that pilots need to be taught how to understand and identify hazards, work out and prioritise risks, then act upon them. That is risk assessment in a nutshell.
By the way please note that I did not use the word Formal, although you may need a 'formal' approach to teach understanding.
Anyone can use a checklist - but understanding why the checks are there and if any are missing takes AIRMANSHIP (and some risk assessment skills).
When Smith Barry was around airmanship was mostly gained by watching others make mistakes (and sometimes dying), making mistakes yourself and hands on training. They were simple machines flown with simple procedures. Airmanship was very much something acquired through experience.
Is still possible to learn Airmanship that way nowadays?
I think that pilots need to be taught how to understand and identify hazards, work out and prioritise risks, then act upon them. That is risk assessment in a nutshell.
By the way please note that I did not use the word Formal, although you may need a 'formal' approach to teach understanding.
Anyone can use a checklist - but understanding why the checks are there and if any are missing takes AIRMANSHIP (and some risk assessment skills).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PD,
Thanks for the offer! I also use other formal risk assessment and mitigation methods in project management, and I agree that taking such methods directly from engineering and management fields and try to apply them to aviation is rather pointless. Particular fields need particular methods, and such cross-polination between fields is a research activity IMV, not something it is worth spending time on ourselves.
It seems everyone is in complete agreement; formal risk assessment may or may not be sensible for certain activities, such as what Genghis and Pilot DAR does, but it is certainly not sensible for day to day private flying.
Case closed, I suppose. Back to see if the Patriots can get out of this mess!
Thanks for the offer! I also use other formal risk assessment and mitigation methods in project management, and I agree that taking such methods directly from engineering and management fields and try to apply them to aviation is rather pointless. Particular fields need particular methods, and such cross-polination between fields is a research activity IMV, not something it is worth spending time on ourselves.
It seems everyone is in complete agreement; formal risk assessment may or may not be sensible for certain activities, such as what Genghis and Pilot DAR does, but it is certainly not sensible for day to day private flying.
Case closed, I suppose. Back to see if the Patriots can get out of this mess!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk Assessment, HF & TEM
Quite extrordinary how reactions boil up when the above words are used.
However, while the terms above may be new and oft assigned to phsycobbable, most pilots will have been trained to do; a Risk Assessment, Threat and Error Management plus add Human Factors before flight.
Such as;
Weather check; local, enroute and destination.
Alternate
time enroute, fuel endurance and reserves
Cruising levels;
terrain, obstructions, safe altitude/MSA, icing levels and cloud base/tops
Suitability of available runways and take-off run/distance,
headwind/crosswind component considerations
Weight and Balance
Safe stowage and security of baggage etc
Maps and charts notified airspace and ATC considerations
Pre-flight walkround checks, currency of C of A, Release to Service etc.
Pre-start, after start, taxiing and power/pre-takeoff checks
Airborne checks; in the climb, top of climb, FREDA, top of descent and bumpfh and commital checks.
And when all that is done: The personal ability given the days conditions to handle the flight. Most PPLs put a great deal of thought at least on that, particularly, although some can be a bit too lacking on elements of the long list.
The pilots risk assessment rules generally remain relevant for all flights. For some non aviation tasks such as project management - mentioned in a previous post - the environment and the assciated risks can be different form job to job and therefore need to be uniquely assessed against a set of pre-determined rules unique to the job or profession.
Landing/take-off and manouvering at an unlicenced strip could of course be unique and a risk assessment will hopefully always be undertaken. A unique risk assessment if only in the form of a simple but full briefing from the owner.
However, while the terms above may be new and oft assigned to phsycobbable, most pilots will have been trained to do; a Risk Assessment, Threat and Error Management plus add Human Factors before flight.
Such as;
Weather check; local, enroute and destination.
Alternate
time enroute, fuel endurance and reserves
Cruising levels;
terrain, obstructions, safe altitude/MSA, icing levels and cloud base/tops
Suitability of available runways and take-off run/distance,
headwind/crosswind component considerations
Weight and Balance
Safe stowage and security of baggage etc
Maps and charts notified airspace and ATC considerations
Pre-flight walkround checks, currency of C of A, Release to Service etc.
Pre-start, after start, taxiing and power/pre-takeoff checks
Airborne checks; in the climb, top of climb, FREDA, top of descent and bumpfh and commital checks.
And when all that is done: The personal ability given the days conditions to handle the flight. Most PPLs put a great deal of thought at least on that, particularly, although some can be a bit too lacking on elements of the long list.
The pilots risk assessment rules generally remain relevant for all flights. For some non aviation tasks such as project management - mentioned in a previous post - the environment and the assciated risks can be different form job to job and therefore need to be uniquely assessed against a set of pre-determined rules unique to the job or profession.
Landing/take-off and manouvering at an unlicenced strip could of course be unique and a risk assessment will hopefully always be undertaken. A unique risk assessment if only in the form of a simple but full briefing from the owner.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Show me anyone who is employing formal risk assessment methods before every flight, especially in private flying, and I'll show you someone who should not be flying an aeroplane (or any aerial conveyance). Come to think of it, they're probably spending so much time filling out pointless forms that they don't have time to fly anyway!
Too many people on this thread are making inappropriate judgments driven by emotion, as a result of cognitive bias.
There is a balance to be struck in flying light aircraft and one does not wish to get bogged down with needless bureaucracy, but on the other some rigour is also required for safe flight.
For example, what are the risks in flying a SEP.
One is obviously total engine failure.
If one visualises a grid of 4 cells, in two layers of two, with a scale of low to high across the top and up the left hand side and the top axis reading 'severity of impact' and the left hand reading 'probablility', one has constructed a probability/impact matrix.
How probable is a total engine failure? Well I don't know anyone who has had one, although I have read of a number on here, so let's say LOW.
How severe is the impact of total engine failure? Well that depends. The financial impact must be assumed to be HIGH as the point of failure is unpredictable and it would be wise to assume the worst case, but the more important aspect of personal safety can be estimated .....
EFATO is potentially HIGH, as there may be strictly limited options.
In IMC, it may be HIGH due to a low cloudbase and limited options on becoming visual.
At night, it may be HIGH, due to more difficult field selection.
Over the water, it may be HIGH due to the nature of ditching and subsequent survival challenges.
In VMC, with a route planned over lots of fields with low standing crops, I would say LOW.
I can then choose a sensible risk response for each potential event.
For all events, I will insure my aircraft against damage, because even though the probablity is low, the impact is high.
From a safety perspective, I have some options to mitigate the impact....
For EFATO, become familiar with the forced landing options immediately around the airfield.
For IMC, decide whether the flight is viable.
At night, fly a tight circuit so a forced landing can be made on the airfield.
Over water, carry sensible survival equipment and get trained in using it.
In VMC, keep looking for suitable fields as you fly and practice forced landings enought o stay current.
I could also choose to stop flying and avoid the risk completely, but as the probablity is LOW, I would not feel the need to take such a drastic step.
What I have just described is a process of formal risk management, conforming to ANSI/PMI 99-001-2008, a US nantional standard.
But, please note, (a) I haven't filled in a form (just used a mental model) and (b) my process has not covered anything that airmanship would not cover.
The risk management process in flying light singles should be more concerned with becoming aware of the risks and remedies, than doing some exotic calculation to define them to four decimal points - I mean, what is the MTBF and standard deviation for an aero engine and does this really mean anything to a PPL? I would argue not really.
For new PPL's, I am surprised that using a P/I matrix is not on the syllabus, as it is a very effective method to seperate the component of Probability from the component of Impact and to relate these together as I did above, to clarify thinking and help to develop airmanship - without writing anything down.
Thats my tuppenceworth and as ever, many will no doubt disagree.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 11th Jan 2010 at 11:32.
The problem is how do you teach the knowledge that is AIRMANSHIP in this day and age?...
I think that pilots need to be taught how to understand and identify hazards, work out and prioritise risks, then act upon them. That is risk assessment in a nutshell.
I think that pilots need to be taught how to understand and identify hazards, work out and prioritise risks, then act upon them. That is risk assessment in a nutshell.
Over the years I've seen the Health and Safety Taliban stifle the freedom of individuals to a greater and greater extent. Their language now pervades every aspect of our lives. I suggest that they, and their advocates take their risk assessments and method statements, wrap them neatly in their yellow jackets and bury them in a quiet corner of the airfield. Well away from me. Long live common sense.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally, those who say things like "long live common sense", have no idea what common sense even is.
Common sense is knowledge already acquired and internalized.
Which takes us right back to the question of what we should learn, how to acquire that knowledge, and how to internalize it.
"Listen to me because I am old" is the traditional way, and it is not a teaching method I would approve of (or use, when I am instructing something).
It is rather sad when people can not tell the difference between risk assessment methods on the one hand, and muppets running around in yellow vests on the other hand. And perhaps more significantly, the difference between muppets running around in yellow vests and muppets trying to make others run around in yellow vests. Good judgment is clearly not very common either.
Common sense is knowledge already acquired and internalized.
Which takes us right back to the question of what we should learn, how to acquire that knowledge, and how to internalize it.
"Listen to me because I am old" is the traditional way, and it is not a teaching method I would approve of (or use, when I am instructing something).
It is rather sad when people can not tell the difference between risk assessment methods on the one hand, and muppets running around in yellow vests on the other hand. And perhaps more significantly, the difference between muppets running around in yellow vests and muppets trying to make others run around in yellow vests. Good judgment is clearly not very common either.