Risk Management Teaching Tips

Page 1 M A Y / J U N E 2 0 0 5 COVER STORY: Practical Risk Management in Flight Training Page 2 F E A T U R E S 1 Practical Risk Management in Flight Training 5 FAA’s New GA Manager Envisions Lowering Accident Rates 6 Me? Lose Control? 10 Cooperation with China Passes the 10-Year Mark 12 Preaching the Preflight Gospel 13 Yank and Bank vs Push and Manage 15 Does Anyone Remember What V-O-R Stands For?

19 Draining Fuel Sumps 23 Mid-Atlantic Fly-In Holds Second Annual Fly-in 25 Childproof Your Flight 29 Air Tour Update 21 Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Responsibilities 27 Tales from an FAA Inspector: TFR 32 Aviation Maintenance Alerts 34 FlightFORUM 35 AvNEWS BACK COVER Editor’s Runway D E P A R T M E N T S FRONT COVER: Seldom do you find such a good-looking seaplane at a flight school. This Twin Bee, hull number 23, was photographed at Jack Brown’s Seaplane Base in Winter Haven, Florida. (H. Dean Chamberlain photo) BACK COVER: The Super King Air B200 in flight. ( photo courtesy of the manufacturer) U.S.

Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration M A Y / J U N E 2 0 0 5 V O L U M E 4 4 • N U M B E R 3 Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation Marion C. Blakey, Administrator Nicholas A. Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service Peter W. Dula, Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division Carol W. Dieterle, Manager, Plans and Programs Branch H. Dean Chamberlain, Editor Louise C. Oertly, Senior Associate Editor A.

Mario Toscano, Associate Editor/Designer The FAA’s Flight Standards Service, General Aviation and Commercial Division’s Plans and Programs Branch (AFS–805) publishes FAA Aviation News six times each year in the interest of aviation safety. The magazine promotes safety by discussing cur- rent technical, regulatory, and procedural aspects affecting the safe operation and maintenance of aircraft. Although based on current FAA policy and rule interpretations, all material herein is advisory or informational in nature and should not be construed to have regulatory effect.

The FAA does not officially endorse any goods, services, materials, or products of manufacturers that may be referred to in an article. Certain details of accidents described herein may have been altered to protect the privacy of those involved. Comments or questions about this magazine should be directed to the Editor at (202) 267-7956. Written comments can be mailed to the Editor at the following address: Editor, FAA Aviation News, Federal Aviation Administration, AFS-805, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591. The fax number is (202) 267-9463. The Editor’s e-mail is dean.chamberlain@faa.gov.

The Office of Management and Budget has approved the use of public funds for the printing of FAA Aviation News. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (GPO) SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES NEW ORDERS The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402–9371, sells FAA Aviation News on subscription. Use the self-mailer form in the center of this maga- zine to subscribe. For new orders, you can telephone the GPO at (202) 512-1800 or toll-free at 1-866-512-1800. You may also order via the Internet at SUBSCRIPTION PROBLEMS/CHANGE OF ADDRESS Send your label with correspondence to Superintendent of Documents, Attn: Chief, Mail List Branch, Mail Stop: SSOM, Washington, DC 20402–9373.

The GPO Customer Service telepe- hone number is (202) 512–1806. You can also telephone toll-free at 1- 866-512-1800 and ask to be transferred to Customer Service. The Customer Service FAX telephone number is (202) 512–2168. To keep subscription prices down, the Government Printing Office mails subscribers only one renewal notice. You can tell when your subscription ends by checking the date on the second line of your mailing label.

To be sure that your service continues without inter- ruption, please return your renewal notice promptly. http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/index.cfm A D O T / F A A F L I G H T S T A N D A R D S S A F E T Y P U B L I C A T I O N ✳✳✳✳✳✳✳✳✳✳✳✳✳✳3–DIGIT 342 FAN SMITH212J JUN05 R 1 423✳ JOHN SMITH 212 MAIN ST FORESTVILLE MD 20747 Page 3 hazards you have identified con- stitute risk, which is the future impact of a hazard that is not controlled or eliminated. The degree of risk posed by a given hazard can be measured in terms of exposure (number of people or resources affected), severity (extent of possible loss), and probability (the likelihood that a hazard will cause a loss).

For example, the hazard de- scribed above— a nick in the propeller—poses a risk only if the airplane is flown. If the air- plane stays on the ground, there is no risk. If, however, the dam- aged prop is exposed to normal engine operation, there is a high risk that it could fracture and cause catastrophic damage not only to the airplane and its oc- cupants, but also to people and property on the ground. For those who like charts, the graphic on the next page pro- vides a visual illustration of how measures of probability and severity come together to create different levels of risk.

I like to think of this 3P model as a mental equivalent to the physical flow pattern and scan techniques we teach for checking airplane configuration and instruments. In fact, the compo- nents of 3P model match up very well to the cross-check (perceive), interpre- tation (process), and control (perform) elements of the standard instrument scan. Just as in the case of an instru- ment scan, however, the 3P technique itself is pointless unless you know what to look for, how to interpret what you see, and how to apply that infor- mation to controlling the risk inherent in operating several thousand feet above Mother Earth.

Here’s how the elements of the 3P scan are intended to work together: • As you perceive (cross-check), the goal is to identify hazards, which are events, objects, or cir- cumstances that could con- tribute to an undesired event. For example, a large nick in the propeller is a hazard. • As you process (interpret), the goal is to determine whether the T here is a lot of talk these days about the need to in- corporate risk management concepts and principles into flight training. Most flight instructors would agree that we should minimize the risk inherent in flying. But what does “safety” really mean? What ex- actly is “risk management?”

How can a flight instructor not only ensure the safety of flight training, but also train clients in all stages of training to man- age risk after they leave the relatively protected flight training environment? As an active part-time flight in- structor, a Civil Air Patrol instructor and check pilot, and (since May 2004) a full-time employee of the FAA’s Gen- eral Aviation and Commercial Division (AFS-800 in “FAA-speak”), I have been thinking a lot about these issues lately.

One of the results of the ongoing process of thinking, talking, and test- ing practical risk management training materials is Volume 2 of the FAA’s three new Flight Instructor Refresher Course developer’s guide modules (available on the FAA web site at and also accessible through the On- line Resources section at ). Volume 2 focuses on introducing the concepts of system safety and risk management as they appear in the formal literature on these topics. More importantly, however, this document—which was developed by active flight instructors—seeks to offer a few practical tools for teaching your flight training clients to think, and practice, effective risk management in the real world.

These tools start with the Perceive—Process—Perform model developed by the FAA’s Aviation Safety Program. 1 M A Y / J U N E 2 0 0 5 Practical Risk Management in Flight Training by Susan Parson P PP PERCEIVE hazards PROCESS to evaluate level of risk PERFORM risk management Page 4 • In order to perform (control) by mitigating the risk identified in the perceive and process stages, you need to determine what you can do to maximize safety (i.e., freedom from those conditions (hazards) that can cause death, injury, or illness; or damage to equipment, property, or the environment).

Since flight training is not possible without some level of risk, you also need to decide what constitutes an “acceptable” level of risk. In this connection, it is helpful to use the four basic rules of risk man- agement: 1. Accept no unnecessary risk. Unnecessary risk comes without a corresponding benefit. With a brand-new instrument student, for example, the risk of training in in- strument meteorological condi- tions (IMC) may outweigh any benefit from the experience. 2. Make risk decisions at the ap- propriate level. Risk decisions should be made by the person who can do something to reduce or eliminate the risk.

Al- though you, as the instructor, re- tain final responsibility for the safety of the flight, remember that you are training clients to act as pilot-in-command. Asking them to identify hazards, assess risk, and suggest ways to mitigate the risk will instill good habits and help them develop judgment. Their an- swers to these questions will also give you valuable insights on the extent of the student’s aeronauti- cal decision-making skills. 3. Accept risk when benefits out- weigh costs (i.e., dangers).

With an advanced instrument stu- dent, the benefits of training in IMC may outweigh the potential dangers, so long as there has been a careful risk assessment and implementation of appropriate risk controls. 4. Integrate risk management into planning at all levels. Because risk is an unavoidable part of flying, safety requires the use of appropriate and effective risk management before every flight. As flight instructors, there- fore, we need to help our clients develop the risk management skills they need to handle chal- lenges that are not addressed by the rules or (more likely) beyond their experience.

Practical Risk Management Tools So how can you incorporate the 3P risk management model into your training practices, and how can you help your clients develop the habit of a continuous risk management “scan?” There are many ways to approach this question, but here are two methods you might try out in both your flight training work and your own personal flying. Ask Questions At the quickest and most funda- mental level, using the 3P method of practical risk management can be as simple as requiring your students to ask and answer a few basic questions before every flight. For example: • To perceive, try to make a mental list of the hazards that can hurt you or others.

• To process, consider how likely it is that a given hazard will hurt you, and how bad the injury or damage would be. • In order to perform risk man- agement, ask yourself what you can do to reduce or eliminate each hazard or risk you have identified, and then implement the measures you have se- lected.

Use Checklists For those (like me) who need or want a more structured approach to using the 3P model, here are three simple checklists that can be associ- ated with each of the three compo- nents: • To help students perceive 2 F A A A v i a t i o n N e w s Page 5 (cross-check) the hazards in all critical areas associated with a flight, you can encourage use of the PAVE checklist (available on- line at ) to identify hazards as well as establish personal minimums.

• To help students process (inter- pret) the possible impact and likelihood of each hazard identi- fied through the PAVE checklist and begin to think about risk controls, you can suggest use of the CARE checklist: • To help students perform (con- trol) risk management, you can point to the TEAM checklist as a way of recalling the four major options for risk management and control: • Putting it all together creates a continuous process much like the cross-check, interpretation, and control steps of the familiar instrument scan. See the illustra- tion on page 4 for how it works: Real-World Risk Management That’s all great in theory, you say, but I fly and teach in the real world!

Who has time for all this risk manage- ment rigmarole? In fact, using the 3P risk management cycle need not be a time-consuming chore. With practice and consistent use, running through the 3P cycle can become a habit that is as smooth, efficient, and automatic as a well-honed instrument scan. One way to implement these ideas is to in- clude a 3P risk management discus- sion as a standard feature of your pre- flight briefing with the student or client. For example: Perceive: Preflighting the Pilot should be the first step. Both you and your student should be healthy, well- rested, and alert. The next step is preflighting the Aircraft.

Before you send your student out to the plane, though, help him or her think of the preflight process in terms of hazard identification (e.g., what could hurt me or people on the ground if I take off with less than the minimum quantity of oil?) A good weather briefing is part of identifying hazards related to the flight enVironment, and so is preflight plan- ning for information on runway lengths, frequencies, and other fac- tors. Last, but not least, teach your student to list any External pressures that might create a hazard. For exam- ple, is the client trying to fit a flight les- son into a busy day, with “can’t miss” appointments scheduled after the les- son?

Process: To assess the level of 3 M A Y / J U N E 2 0 0 5 Pilot experience, recency, currency, physical/emotional condition Aircraft fuel reserves, experience in type, aircraft performance, aircraft equipment (e.g., avionics) airport conditions, weather (VFR & IFR requirements), runways, lighting, terrain allowance for delays and diversions enVironment External pressures Consequences Think through the possible outcomes (con- sequences) posed by each of the hazards identified in the first phase, and determine (or “guess-timate”) the level of risk involved Alternatives Develop a mental list of alternative courses of action Acknowledge reality and avoid wishful thinking that might lead to poor decisions Be mindful of external pressures, espe- cially tendencies toward “get-home-itis.”

Reality External pressures Transfer Should this risk decision be transferred to someone else (e.g., should you consult an A&P mechanic?) Eliminate Is there a way to eliminate the hazard? Do the benefits of accepting risk outweigh the dangers? What can you do to mitigate the risk? Accept Mitigate Page 6 risk you face on a given flight, talk through the Consequences of each hazard you just identified. In the case of the pilot, for example, what should you do if your student or client rushes in looking harried, exhausted, and stressed out?

If you charge ahead without first giving the person time to calm down, he/she will learn little from the aeronautical lesson, but may well learn the wrong lesson about risk management. As an Alternative, con- sider making it a ground training day, or use the sim- ulator if it is appropriate to the student’s stage of learn- ing. Simulator sessions— even if only a “flight” on Mi- crosoft® FlightSimulator— can teach students a lot about the impact (so to speak) of stress and fatigue on basic airplane control and aeronautical decision- making. Ensure that your students and clients ac- knowledge the Reality of each situation and hazard.

One of my instructor friends reminds her students that any statement requiring use of the word “probably” needs another reality check. Finally, the number of acci- dents resulting from a “get there” mentality requires that you assess the poten- tial influence of External pressures. For example, will tight scheduling of the aircraft induce you or your student to rush through the preflight and engine runup? A (young) student of mine once requested another in- structor because I refused to do just that on his first lesson. I can only hope he remembers something from the fact that I actually prac- ticed what I was preaching about priorities.

Perform: Let’s as- sume that your primary stu- dent heads out to do some solo work in the local prac- tice area. Shortly after takeoff, he/she discovers that the C-152’s attitude in- dicator has tumbled, even though the vacuum pressure is well within normal limits. The weather is good and he/she knows that the altitude indica- tor is not required for day VFR flight. However, the student has not previ- ously encountered such a problem, and recognizes the malfunction as a hazard that could lead to the risk of distraction or disorientation. The stu- dent’s uncertainty also creates a de- gree of stress, which also raises the level of risk associated with this flight.

What are the options for performing risk management? Since the CFI is legally the PIC for this flight, the stu- dent could seek to Transfer the deci- sion by making a radio call for instruc- tions. The second option is to Eliminate the risk inherent in continuing the flight by returning to the airport. Knowing that the attitude indicator is 4 F A A A v i a t i o n N e w s P PP 1. PERCEIVE hazards using the PAVE checklist (Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, External factors) What conditions might create risk? 3. PERFORM risk management by using the TEAM checklist (Transfer, Eliminate, Accept, Mitigate) to deal with each factor 2.

PROCESS haz- ards by using the CARE (Consequences, Alternatives, Reality, External factors) checklist to help you evaluate the level and severity of risk. Page 7 not required, that the weather is good, and that he/she is supposed to be controlling the aircraft by outside visual references rather than instruments, the student might choose to Accept the risk and complete the practice session. There are several ways to Mitigate the risk; the most obvious is to cover the malfunctioning instrument to minimize its ability to distract or disorient the pilot. What would your student(s) do in this situation? What would you want them to do? There may not be a sin- gle “right” answer.

The point is to teach your students and clients to rec- ognize the hazards and options they will face in any given flight, and to equip them with the tools they need to evaluate their options in a logical and safety-conscious way. It’s All About Habits It is never too early to start teach- ing your students about risk manage- ment. You may find that the 3P model is not all that different from what you have been doing all along. So why use it at all? Here are two reasons. First, I’m willing to bet that many of your flight training clients will have no idea what to do if you simply tell them they need to manage risk.

The 3P model gives you a tool to teach them a structured, efficient, and systematic way to identify hazards, assess risk, and implement effective risk controls. Second, practicing risk management needs to be as automatic in GA flying as basic airplane control. Consider making the 3P discussion a standard feature of your preflight discussion. As is true for other flying skills, risk management thinking habits are best developed through repetition and con- sistent adherence to specific proce- dures. In the increasingly complex aviation system, we owe it to the pilots we train to equip them with the tools to practice this vital skill.

This article is reprinted with per- mission from the NAFI Mentor. Susan Parson is a special assis- tant in Flight Standards Service’s Gen- eral Aviation and Commercial Division. Peter Dula is the new manager of the General Aviation and Commercial Division in the FAA’s Flight Standards Service. Dula assumed the new posi- tion April 2005, bringing into General Aviation over 30 years of wide-rang- ing aviation experience and a goal aimed to bringing down the General Aviation fatal accident rate. “My belief is that through training and standardi- zation we can achieve that vision,” he says. Peter Dula’s experience and avia- tion career is varied and extensive.

He holds an air transport pilot rating with over 7,000 hours and is qualified in numerous military, transport category, and general aviation aircraft. Dula received his “Wings of Gold” in 1979 by qualifying as a tactical strike carrier Navy pilot. As a pilot in the United States Navy, United States Customs Service, and the Federal Avi- ation Administration he has flown and worked in many parts of the world, in- cluding the Arctic, the Far East, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, Eu- rope, and Central and South America. He joined the FAA in 1991 as an Aviation Safety Inspector at the An- chorage Flight Standards District Of- fice (FSDO).

During his 14-year FAA career he has held positions as a re- gional operations specialist, congres- sional liaison officer, and manager of Flight Standards District Offices in Texas and Arkansas. In FAA headquarters, Dula was assistant division manager of the Flight Standards Service Technologies, and Procedures Division. Most recently, he served as an FAA executive in the As- sociate Administrator for Aviation Safety’s Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service. That group is responsible for the development and maintenance of policy and requirements for the agency’s Safety Management System that provides safety oversight of the FAA Air Traffic Organization.

5 M A Y / J U N E 2 0 0 5 5 FAA’s New GA Manager Envisions Lowering Accident Rate story and photo by Mario Toscano