Cockpit Courage and Preflight Pragmatism -
Letting discretion be the better part of valor
Reprinted with permission from FAA
Here's a question you may
not have heard in a while''If (fill in the blank) jumped off abridge, would you
do it too? 'While such queries typically end with passing of adolescence, the
sentiment still has a place in the very adult business of aviation safety. The
inquisitor could have been a parent, a shop teacher, or your first flight
instructor, but the conclusion at which they wanted you to arrive was the same.
Good judgment is an individual exercise, and one that must never be abdicated,
regardless of the circumstances. Of course, the consequences of hurling oneself
from a bridge are readily apparent. However, the decision to defer an aircraft
squawk, launch in the face of uncertain weather, or fly while suffering through
illness, is often mired in uncertainty. These matters are further complicated
when they involve two rated pilots, each of whom has drawn different conclusions
from a given set of facts. Because all of us will eventually share the cockpit
with another pilot, if only to complete our obligatory flight review, it is
important to consider how best to resolve differences in aeronautical
decision-making prior to every flight.
In the scenario
outlined above, what we are really discussing is the critical role conflict
resolution can play in cockpit resource management. Unfortunately, there is
little guidance concerning how best to handle such matters. What's worse, other
segments of the aviation community have even less insight to offer. Airline and
military operations are heavily regulated, and the pilot in command is
established long before crews reach the flight line. In these cases, go/no-go
decisions are determined by strict operational guidelines, and an individual's
initiative, personality, or agenda plays a diminished role in the process. This
is not so for the general aviation (GA) pilot, who has a burden and a luxury
unique in aviation. Unlike the military or air carrier communities, the decision
if and when to fly lies solely with you. Sure there are external (and perhaps
internal) pressures, but these must be weighed against the greater moral
obligation to protect others (and yourself) from the consequences of a poor
decision or a lapse in good judgment.
Of course, all
of this is a moot point when standing on a ramp at any-airport U.S.A. debating
the weather outlook with your fellow pilot. When attempting to resolve such
issues, there are two critical forces conspiring against you'perception and risk
aversion. While it is best to look at these as opposite sides of the same coin,
each carries with it unique challenges. Learning to identify the traits that
accompany each may be helpful in recognizing and avoiding potential conflicts.
look at perception. Perception is focused largely on the hazard side of the
coin. For example, one pilot may perceive level-2 storm activity as a hazard. A
second pilot may look upon it as simply another factor to be considered, no more
or less significant than weight and balance calculations or runway length. An
effective way to determine if perceptive differences will be an issue is to
discuss a series of typical flight scenarios with the other pilot. What factors
do they consider most important when planning and conducting a particular
flight? Understanding an individual's operational philosophy can be most helpful
in determining when and if you wish to fly with them.
On the other
hand, the dynamics completely change when risk aversion enters the equation. In
this case, both pilots may perceive a hazard exists, but one pilot may be
willing (for a myriad of reasons) to accept the risk, while a second pilot
simply will not. As a practical matter, the disconnect brought on by risk
aversion is the most difficult to resolve. While it is possible to modify
perceptions based on rational discussion, risk aversion tends to be more central
to a person's psychological construction. As a result, it is nearly impossible
to change. Thankfully, these differences are also the easiest to identify. Just
remember, be prepared to stand your ground (no pun intended) when flying with
someone 'braver' than yourself.
difficulty lies in the fact that not everyone views hazards or risks in the same
manner. Let's use an obvious example to illustrate this point. A 17-knot
crosswind is a hazard in that it poses an element of risk. On the other hand,
the degree of risk varies with a multitude of factors, such as pilot experience,
aircraft type, etc. A seasoned aviator, flying a familiar aircraft, may not
perceive a great risk. On the other hand, a student pilot flying a Cessna 152 is
likely to consider this a very risky undertaking'same condition, two different
responses. Who is correct? Realistically, both may be. Each pilot has exercised
aeronautical decision-making and risk management. The more experienced pilot has
decided to conduct the flight because it is within his or her ability to do so
safely. The risk can be mitigated through a careful review of weather, the
planning of an alternate, etc. The student, on the other hand, chose to
eliminate the risk completely by staying on the ground.
All this aside,
if you often fly with other pilots, you will eventually encounter a difference
of opinion involving a critical go/no-go decision. You may be the advocate of
launching or remaining earth-bound, but in either case, the matter must be
addressed. While it sounds elementary, the best way to avoid such difficulties
is to adopt an unwavering operational philosophy. If you fly with another pilot,
regardless of his or her experience level, make sure it is understood that each
pilot has veto authority over the flight. If your aeronautical cohort is
unwilling to exercise his or her authority, or is unwilling to recognize yours,
it's best to find a new partner.
But how can you
recognize the makings of a potentially tragic disagreement? If you tend to be
the voice of restraint, you may hear comments such as:
'It will be fine.'
This phrase is
most likely the result of a perceptual disconnect between you and your flying
partner. If you hear this, ask yourself (and your fellow pilot) why will it be
fine? Will it be fine because it's always been fine? Will it be fine because we
need to get home? Will it be fine because you've witnessed similar conditions in
other aircraft? Frankly none of these provide a compelling case for risking
one's life. There's only one good response to the question, and that is it will
be fine because we have manageable options that may be exercised. If you don't
have an out, than all you truly have is the aeronautical equivalent of a coin
'I've been flying for
(insert a suitably inflated number of years)''
disconnect brought about by differences in risk aversion. This argument will
usually arise when flying with a more experienced pilot, and it should
immediately raise a red flag. Your concerns have been dismissed, and what your
fellow pilot is actually telling you is that in the absence of a compelling
argument to support his or her position, you should risk your life simply
because he or she is willing to risk his or her life. Again, if someone jumps
off the bridge, would you do it too? While I would never discount the value of
practical experience, the thickness of a pilot's logbook provides no absolution
once a poor decision is made. Is it possible the person has never encountered
this situation before? You bet! Is it possible the pilot encountered a similar
situation, made a poor decision, yet suffered no ill consequences? Absolutely.
Remember, as a pilot, you are only as good as the decision you make
the decisions you make are only as good as the options they provide.
'The forecast is always
wrong' or 'Flight Service always preaches gloom and doom'
This is yet
another perception issue. No one can dispute that weather forecasting is an
inexact science. We've all cancelled flights, only to have the clouds
miraculously part, leaving behind a clear, beautiful day. Similarly, pilots have
launched expecting blue skies, only to encounter unforeseen adverse weather
conditions. With every flight, we are at the mercy of shortcomings inherent to
meteorological science. However, we must not become dismissive or complacent
when preparing to make go/no-go decisions. To the best of your ability, identify
all potential hazards and assign each of them a strategy to reduce risk. If the
risk cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level, then you must seek an
alternative. The price of a rental car or hotel room is insignificant when
compared to the value of your life.
'How will you ever expand
your operational envelope if you are unwilling to take risks?'
A query such as
this indicates a differing level of risk aversion. The real question is, 'How do
you expand your operational envelope without exposing yourself to unnecessary
risks?' You do it through sound aeronautical decision- making and risk
management. Remember, a hazard only becomes a risk (and thus a danger) if it is
handled incorrectly. When you train, do so with experienced instructors who can
help you safely broaden your aeronautical horizons.
Thus far, all of
the guidance provided has been tailored to the more conservative pilot. This
most likely results from personal bias. However, if you find yourself flying
with someone who is more risk averse, I have two pieces of advice to offer.
First, avoid dismissing the concerns expressed by others. They may have
experience you lack, or they may just offer a point of view you failed to
consider. They may also be the voice of reason trying to keep you from falling
victim to 'get home-itis.' Second, if the person with whom you fly is more
conservative and you are not willing to adopt their personal minima, simply find
another partner. It will help you avoid frustration, and your fellow pilot to
avoid undue anxiety.
Now I don't want
to leave the impression that a second pilot's involvement only serves to
potentially complicate matters'quite the contrary. Unlike other segments of
aviation, GA doesn't benefit from an integrated, multidisciplinary support
system, such as meteorologists, dispatchers, crewmembers, flight department,
etc. As a result, the ability to openly discuss safety-of-flight issues with
another pilot is often very beneficial. It serves to reinforce or challenge your
notion of what is and is not safe. This is why determining the philosophical
compatibility of your cockpit companion is so important.
In short, we've
all heard it said that we should never let an aircraft take us some place we
don't want to be. To that I would add it's just as important not to let another
pilot take us somewhere we don't want to be. There's simply no reason to jump
from a perfectly good bridge, even if someone else is willing to do it first.
Michael W. Brown is an Aviation
Safety Analyst in Flight Standards Service's General Aviation and Commercial