Risk management and attitude...
WARNING: LONG POST!
Another poster mentioned risk management, but failed to expound. Whether they know it or not, when pilots discuss
aviation safety , what they are really talking about is
risk management.
Each and every activity we engage in has risk. What is obvious is some activities are more risky than others. What is not so obvious is the relative risk of an activity may change depending on the situation. The idea of risk management as a pilot activity allows one to assess each risk as it applies to a particular situation.
Click here for an example risk assessment tool.
Of course, all the risk assessment/management tools on the planet won't help if the pilot chooses not to use them...
In my experience as a 20-year veteran military flight crew member, safety is an attitude, an attitude instilled over years of indoctrination, reinforcement and continual pounding on the podium by those in charge. Considering its mission, the USAF has a remarkable aviation safety record.
How can we create the right attitude here? This thread is a GREAT start!
Many people believe attitude cannot be taught; I vehemently disagree! IMHO, the idea that attitude cannot be taught has resulted in a tremendous number of needless deaths in our community.
Attitudes can be learned just as knowledge or skills may be learned. In fact, knowledge, skill and attitude comprise the three learning domains of
Bloom's Taxonomy. In Bloom's taxonomy, the three domains are:
- Cognitive - Knowledge
- Psychomotor - Skill
- Affective - Attitude
Adult learning experts have long opined teaching and learning in the affective domain presents unique challenges on the part of both the teacher and the student, but no one disputes effective learning can occur.
Click here for a good treatise on learning and teaching in the affective domain. If you don't want to read the entire page here are a few highlights:
The best way to teach an attitude is to create a need for one during ground school (cognitive) and flight training (psycomotor), then teach by example. Students will best learn from their primary instructor, either thru discussion or direct observation/imitation, the importance of safety. Research shows that aside from personal experience, role modeling and social acceptance are the most powerful attitudinal devolopers. Think about the implications of that for a moment. Unless you survive a life-threatening experience from which to learn, your instructor and the rest of the flying community will likely form the basis of your attitude toward flight safety when faced with a "life or death" decision.
Experts categorize levels of learning within the affective domain on the following scale:
- RECEIVING PHENOMENA -- an awareness; willingness to listen
- RESPONDING TO PHENOMENA -- taking an active part in learning; participating
- VALUING -- the value a person attaches to something
- ORGANIZATION -- organizing values into order of priority
- INTERNALIZING VALUES -- behavior which is controlled by a value system
NOTE: It's generally accepted this scale is progressive; before one can value an attitude one must have learned of it, etc.
I think if asked, everyone of us would SAY we believe that flight safety is paramount; when faced with dire straights, getting the plane on the ground without injury to people or damage to the aircraft is the primary goal -- we are beyond the first three levels as regards learning an attitude. The problem seems to come when we're asked to PRIORITIZE. Even though we believe flight safety is paramount, our behaviour often reflects conflicting values. We make silly decisions that lead to injury/death and seem to make no sense. They seem to make no sense until we discern the controlling value. In many cases, pilots allow themselves to be influenced by factors having little to do with flying the aircraft.
In my opinion, our problem isn't teaching new attitudes (values). Our problem is how to ORGANIZE and INTERNALIZE our values so that we may properly prioritize. Our behaviour should (and most likely will) reflect our beliefs.
Which brings us back to risk management. Using a tool such as the assessment checklist at the link posted above helps us to look at each situation, list the risks, value and prioritize them and assign a "score" to the flight. Score too high and you don't fly -- it's just that simple.
Here's another suggestion: appoint an aviation guardian. Each of us knows someone whose aviation judgement we trust. If you are having trouble assessing risk on a mission, involve your guardian. Call him/her with the situation and discuss it. Someone that doesn't have a stake in completing the flight will have a much different view of the risks than you might. You might even take it a step further and commit to NEVER FLYING an IFR flight unless you consult with your guardian. Just knowing your guardian will be looking over your shoulder can strongly influence your risk assessments...
Finally, share your experiences -- both good and bad. I might suggest Mr. Reeves start an "AFTER ACTION" section on VAF forum, an area where the intrepid few with thick skin post their experiences in an open forum allowing others to opine on how they might have handled things differently. From my experience as a USAF crewmember, the post-flight critique was a critical and effective attitude reinforcement tool.
After every mission, the crew (or crews in the event of a multi-aircraft flight) review the mission as regards flight safety and mission effectiveness. For training missions, flight safety rules; operational missions might requir more emphasis on mission effectiveness. Crews discuss safety issues without pride, prejudice or passion (hopefully). All comments by everyone involved are taken at their face not as a personal attack, but as one person trying to help another aviod death or injury. No opinion is suppressed. Sometimes the discussion involves how safety relates to mission effectiveness, and these are the most beneficial because they help clarify one's system of value organization.
It was not uncommon for these discussions to occur openly in view of other crewmembers that weren't on the flight. Comments from the peanut gallery were encouraged -- all actions are open for scrutiny. Can you say "social acceptance?"
I know some of you have posted your experiences in other threads on this forum -- I salute your effort to better prepare the rest of us to make those "life or death" decisions. I would encourage those of you who share to try and see past your emotions when reading others' opinions about your experiences. Email sometimes conveys emotions not intended by the poster. Try to accept any and all comments on their face as an attempt to help foster a "safety culture" here on the forum. Beware your individualism; the same attitude that led you to eschew certified aircraft and choose to build your own aircraft can lead to an unwillingness to listen to other's opinions.
For those commenting on another's experience, in my opinion, the most effective observations are made without rancor or contempt. This serves to limit an emotional reaction in those we are observing (trying to help). To ensure a rich supply of material for discussion, we should remember that those not familiar with a system like this will be much more amenable to posting their experiences for dissection if they don't feel like they're opening themselves up for cheap shots and personal attacks.
This is a great thread and I hope we can keep it going!
Regards,
Mark Sletten