Mark Sletten
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 43
Location: St. Jacob, IL (Near St. Louis, MO)
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: Safety, Risk Management & Pilots |
 |
|
Listers,
BEWARE! LONG-WINDED POST!
The problem with developing a "training" program to teach safety to pilots
is exactly that which has been voiced by a number of readers -- you're
preaching to the choir. Additionally, because safety means different things
to different pilots, a message that has import to everyone becomes difficult
-- if not impossible -- to craft.
Even the best trainers struggle with the issue. John and Martha King have
even gone so far as to avoid the use of the word safety. The idea is it's
been used so much pilots are becoming immune to its ability to get our
attention. Instead, the King's now tout "risk management" as a way to focus
our attention on the more important factors that should guide our decision
making -- an idea that has much merit IMHO.
Adding further to the problem is the difficulty faced in teaching and
learning safety. Understanding safety isn't a matter of regurgitating a list
of relevant facts or demonstrating unique skills -- it's an attitude, a
belief. Like religion, safety deals with a personal value system, and as
such resides in a particular learning domain that is difficult (but not
impossible) to teach.
Adult education experts classify learning into three domains: Cognitive,
Psychomotor & Affective. The cognitive domain deals mainly with knowledge
and can be equated to ground school for the purposes of our discussion. The
psychomotor domain is where you learn skills; eye-hand coordination,
manipulating the stick and rudder, accomplishing tasks in the proper order,
etc. Flight training is learning in the psychomotor domain. Most of us are
familiar with cognitive and psychomotor learning.
The affective domain encompasses feelings, attitude, values, etc. A good
flight school and/or instructor will imbue his/her syllabus with lessons
addressing attitudes and values throughout the training program. For a much
more in-depth review of affective learning click on this link:
http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/affective.htm
If you don't want to read the entire webpage let me cover some highlights.
The best way to teach an attitude is to foster a need for one within your
student during ground school (cognitive) and flight training (psychomotor),
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
developers. 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 have further categorized levels of learning within the affective
domain (see below). It's generally accepted that one must progress up this
scale. For example, before one can value an attitude one must have learned
of it, etc.
1. RECEIVING PHENOMENA -- an awareness; willingness to listen
2. RESPONDING TO PHENOMENA -- taking an active part in learning;
participating
3. VALUING -- the value a person attaches to something
4. ORGANIZATION -- organizing values into order of priority
5. INTERNALIZING VALUES -- behavior which is controlled by a value system
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 our awareness and acceptance of
safety in the affective domain. The problem seems to come when we're asked
to PRIORITIZE. Even though we believe flight safety is paramount, our
behavior often reflects conflicting values. We make silly decisions that
lead to injury/death -- low-level aerobatics or trying to stretch a few more
miles out that last top off -- and seem to make no sense. They seem to make
no sense until we discern the controlling value. In the two above examples
having fun or saving time is perceived as the priority.
In my opinion, our problem isn't teaching new attitudes (values). Everyone
understands flying airplanes is dangerous and can result in our death, or
the deaths of others. Our problem is how to ORGANIZE and INTERNALIZE our
values so that we may properly prioritize. Our behavior should (and most
likely will) reflect our beliefs. Obviously there needs to be some balance;
we build our planes to enjoy them and get us places in less time. But no one
would argue that walking away from the aircraft following our return to
earth should be the most important priority.
I spent twenty years as a member of the USAF (Boom Operator on KC-135
aircraft). Any USAF flight crewmember will tell you that the Air Force has a
lock on safety. That's not to say it doesn't deal with its share of
accidents; after all, its pilots engage in some of the most hazardous flying
activities imaginable. But no organization is better at instilling safety
into its culture. Some of the things it does:
SAFETY AS A CORPORATE VALUE -- Safety is mentioned at least once a day by
"someone in charge." No aspect of your life is considered sacrosanct from
safety review. Commanders are required to individually brief members who
engage in high-risk activities off duty (skydiving, scuba diving, even
flying light aircraft). Every season brings new hazards and results in a
mass safety briefing to discuss them; 101 Critical Days of Summer, Winter
Driving Tips, etc. Everyone from the top down is continually observed and
critiqued on their attitude towards safety. You can see how this falls right
into the "social acceptance" aspect of attitude change.
MONTHLY FLYING SAFETY MEETINGS -- Every month crewmembers are required to
attend a safety meeting. An officer is assigned specifically to organize and
present pertinent safety topics. Accidents are mercilessly reviewed as
regards the actions of the crew. All aspects of the accident are pored over
(ever read an NTSB report on a major airline accident?) with the intention
of showing how the crew's action (or inaction) contributed. All the data is
presented coldly, emotionlessly, accurately and concisely; no punches are
pulled out of respect for the living or dead crewmembers involved. More
"social acceptance."
POST-FLIGHT CRITIQUES -- After every mission, the crew (or crews in the
event of a multi-aircraft flight) review the entire mission as regards
flight safety and mission effectiveness. For training missions, flight
safety rules; operational missions might require more emphasis on mission
effectiveness. Crews discuss safety issues without prejudice or passion
(hopefully) -- leave your ego at the door. All comments by everyone involved
are taken at their face not as a personal attack, but as one person trying
to help another avoid 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's not uncommon for these discussions to occur openly
in view of other crewmembers that weren't on the flight. Comments from the
peanut gallery are encouraged -- all actions are open for scrutiny. Can you
say "social acceptance?"
QUALIFICATION TRAINING -- This may seem silly to even mention, but the
importance of ensuring one is qualified to engage in a particular activity
before attempting to do so cannot be overstated. In the USAF, NO ONE is
allowed to engage in a flight-related activity until they've been trained
and their skills and knowledge evaluated and compared to a standard. Flight
examiners also evaluate an individual's decision-making since how we react
to a particular situation holds clues to our attitudes and values.
CURRENCY TRAINING -- Effective, recurrent emergency procedures training
conducted in as realistic a method as possible (simulators). No one can
argue that a behavior repeated time and again becomes second nature.
Research has proven that repetitive training such as this can even change
attitudes. Hmmm...
As you can see, the USAF incorporates and internalizes training in the
affective domain throughout its entire culture. They utilize three key
devices experts tell us are most effective in changing attitudes:
-- Demonstration of the desired behavior by a respected role model (primary
training)
-- Practice of the desired behavior, often through role playing (simulator
training)
-- Reinforcement of the desired behavior (safety meetings, post-flight
critiques, etc.)
As has been mentioned, the alphabet groups have resisted getting the
insurance companies involved... because they fear the "power" one might then
wield within the community it has been suggested. While I don't know about
that, I do know the Cirrus Owner's and Pilots Organization has resisted just
such an initiative within its own group; the reason might surprise you.
COPA has a remarkable record. You may have read of a number of high-profile
accidents involving Cirrus aircraft; more than would seem the norm
considering the number of aircraft in the fleet. What you probably didn't
know is that nearly 90% of those accidents involved Cirrus pilots who are
not members of COPA. Hmmmm....
COPA (www.cirruspilots.org) has incorporated safety awareness in every
aspect of its activities. They organize and sponsor (or find someone to
sponsor) type-specific training seminars. Almost all of the many fly-ins its
members attend include some type of (voluntary, but almost universally
attended) training seminar. If you want to know how COPA values safety, go
to its website and click the link for the organization's "Code of Conduct."
I submit you will likely never find a more cogent, concise and pertinent
document from which to base your actions as a pilot.
COPA also runs an extremely active message forum on which members regularly
dissect recent flights (much like the USAF post-flight critique). There is
also a move afoot among members to establish a "mentor" program. Each member
will have contact information for an experienced Cirrus pilot whom they may
consult to help with preflight decision-making. Ever looked over a preflight
situation and agonized over what to do? What if you had someone you trust
implicitly (other than the Flight Service Station) to help you focus on the
important factors and make a good decision? I believe this single program
has more potential to prevent accidents than almost anything else COPA
does...
So why did COPA resist seeking an insurance discount for COPA membership?
Simply because its members fear pilots will then join just for the discount
rather than to be involved and active in the safety programs. It attributes
the remarkable safety statistic mentioned above to the fact that all its
members are focused on safely flying the aircraft above all else -- and they
want to keep it that way.
One might ask the question: Is COPA's safety record due to its programs,
because it attracts the kind of pilot who is naturally cautious or some
other reason? That's a good question -- the kind where contemplating an
answer may hold value for us all...
I would suggest those of us who feel we should "DO" something about
improving our safety record as a community might consider doing some of the
things COPA does. The braver among us might consider posting about a recent
flight where something unusual happened and open a discussion. Even posting
about a flight were the pilot decided not to go can be instructive; on what
factors did he or she base the no-go decision?
Post-flight discussions are invaluable for reviewing tragedies and triumphs,
but some posters are better than others at leaving out personal attacks and
avoiding contempt when discussing another's actions. Because email isn't the
most effective method of conveying meaning, we should endeavor as both a
"sender" and "receiver" of data to avoid the distractions of rancor and
contempt thereby limiting our emotional reactions -- that only leads to
flame wars. And 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.
Conversely, be open-minded if someone questions your activities. There isn't
one among us who couldn't improve when it comes to safety, but unless you
are aware of a shortcoming you can't eliminate it. Try to view criticism as
an effort on the part of another to help you. Try to accept any and all
comments on their face as an attempt to help foster a "safety culture" here
on the list. For my own part, I try to beware my individualism. I try to
remind myself the same attitude that led me away from certified aircraft and
to build and fly a high-performance kit can lead to my unwillingness to
listen to other's opinions.
Those more experienced among us might also consider mentoring. I don't mean
publicly flaming someone you believe made a stupid decision, but taking the
time to thoughtfully review a situation after getting ALL THE FACTS and
having a civilized discussion -- one on one -- with a wayward pilot. Discuss
the importance of getting the proper training before engaging in a
particular type of flight activity (formation, aerobatic, etc). Talk about
the importance of staying current. Offer to be available to help with
preflight decision making.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. BTW, please feel free to comment in any
fashion you like about this post -- after 20 years of post-flight critiques
I'm pretty thick skinned!
Regards,
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
_________________
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com |
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
