Risk Assessment in General Aviation

In February 1998, a DA20 Katana crashed into a frozen Lake Manitoba killing both the flight instructor and student.  It was determined that the flight pressed on into poor weather until it encountered white out conditions.[1]

Ten years later, in August 2008, a C172 crashed northwest of Toronto killing one and injuring two (one seriously) during a general aviation (GA) flight.  The TSB concluded that the pilot and his two passengers, both pilots, were most likely asleep.[2]

At first glance, it would appear that there is nothing in common between these two accidents.  However, both are examples of flights that may have proceeded without an adequate risk assessment.

Whether we realize it or not, pilots assess risk everyday; such as weather forecasts, runway conditions, and deferred aircraft defects.  Flight instructors are also responsible for assessing a great variety of risks for both themselves and their students.  For instance, instructors must evaluate the student’s performance over the long and short term before releasing them for a solo flight.  Risk is a variable, constantly changing and coming from many internal and external sources.  Pilots and instructors may find that certain risks are unacceptable, while others are acceptable.

But what constitutes “acceptable risk”?  Pilots generally do not accept unnecessary risk (such as taking off with a thunderstorm overhead the airport).  Other times, the risk is so small that it is obviously worth commencing the flight (such as an unserviceable attitude indicator on an otherwise ideal VMC day).  Most times the risk falls somewhere in between.  Regrettably, there is often no formal process by which the risk for GA and training flights is assessed.

In the two examples above, as in all accidents, there were many links in the accident chain.  In the first accident, time pressures, poor weather and lack of an instrument rating for the PIC were cited as contributing factors.  In the second accident, fatigue, weight and balance, and improper flight following were identified as risk factors.  We know that pilots assess risk with every flight; but as a group aviators keep getting caught in situations where multiple risk factors add up to an accident or incident.  How can we identify and address these risks before it’s too late?

A tool already in use by many charter and corporate operators can help in GA.  It’s called the Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) - and it is easy to implement and use.  Unlike airline operations where the same route and airports are utilized regularly, charters take pilots into new airports, local weather environments, unique airspace, and other special situations on an almost daily basis.  The self dispatch environment, constantly changing variables, and variety of threats are very similar to what occurs in GA, which includes flight training.  FRAT can be utilized by flight schools for both training and rental flights; and pilots who own and operate their own personal aircraft can implement FRAT as well.

FRAT is a system which quantifies and replaces other pre-flight risk assessments you may already use such as “IMSAFE” or “PAVE”.  It also helps identify risks that you as a pilot may not have previously considered.  Because FRAT is quantifiable, it helps remove ego and emotion from the analysis.

To use FRAT, a checklist of possible threats is consulted and a score is assigned to each threat you are likely to encounter during your flight.  Greater threats have a higher score.  If the total score for your flight exceeds a pre-determined threshold, you need to consult someone about the risk.  In flight training, the Chief Flight Instructor (CFI) or another supervisor may be consulted to accept, mitigate, or reject the risk.  A private pilot may choose to consult their past instructor or a mentor with more experience, to assist in evaluating the risk.  The PIC is always accountable for their actions or inactions; and FRAT provides a caution that the pilot needs to look closely at the risk involved as the score climbs. Instructors should give their students an opportunity before every flight to identify hazards, assess the risk, and make suggestions to mitigate it.  That way, they will develop the decision making skills they will require as licensed pilots.

For example, consider a dual flight towards a night rating.  Points may be awarded for a flight after 2300 hours local time, the instructor being a Class 4, the student having less than 50 hours on type, etc.  In this example, should the risk score exceed the pre-set threshold, the CFI may choose to assign a more experienced instructor, permit the flight if the crew rest received was adequate and the duty day short, or cancel the flight altogether.  Though not perfect, many risks that would otherwise add up can be trapped and assessed.

If you're a private pilot who owns an aircraft, your FRAT checklist may consider items such as how many hours you've flown recently, how strong the crosswind is, how low the visibility may be, and how many items on your aircraft are unserviceable.  While none of these items in themselves prevents you from under-taking a legal flight, the cumulative effect is something worth considering.

Sample of a Partial FRAT Checklist.

While this is a tool any pilot can use, it is also a great benefit for management in maintaining operational control and can be embedded in operational procedures.  The TSB noted in the final report of the second accident that "reliance on a pilot’s own judgment to prevent fatigue-related accidents is an ineffective defence mechanism".[3]  In other words, a quantifiable system such as FRAT is preferable.

Every FRAT checklist is different, and the points awarded will be based on your operation.  Operators based at towered airports may assign more risk involving flights to uncontrolled aerodromes; whereas pilots based at small aerodromes would assign greater risk in traveling to controlled airports with heavy traffic and a mix of aircraft sizes.  A good sample is available in FAA Operator Communication 07015 available on the FAA's website.  Though designed for charter operations, it can be easily modified to accommodate any operation; such as flight training units or private aircraft.  Some on-line flight planning software, such as fltplan.com, even allow you to develop your own customizable FRAT assessment on their website.

Consider how you and/or your operation deal with daily operational risk.  Do you have personal limits?  Is there a series of rules and regulations that the operator sets?  That’s a start.  But you can seriously increase your risk without breaking any of the rules; following them alone does not make you impervious to risk.

A two minute quantitative measurement before your flight can help indicate if that risk level is getting too high; and provide an opportunity to mitigate or reject the risk before its too late.

1 TSB Report A98C0030,

2, 3 TSB Report A08O0233

An edited version of this post appeared in Transport Canada's Aviation Safety Letter, Issue 1/2016.