Editorial: The “Flying Season” and Safety
By Ed Downs
Okay, not an exciting title, but give it chance. There really is a “Flying Season.” Logically, it takes place between May and October, obviously due to improved weather vacation travel. Generally, up to 70 percent of the flying hours flown during a year occur during these months, and the same percentage applies to revenues earned by aviation- related businesses. Regrettably, the NTSB and FAA also have to gear up, as accident rates increase with activity. No magic to those stats, more planes, more pilots, more accidents. So let’s see if there are any lessons from the past or new programs that might reduce this predictable trend.
The FAA came to an interesting conclusion early in this century. New technology airplanes were hitting the market, advanced GPS-based navigation systems came into play, and auto-flight control systems became increasingly sophisticated. This trend has accelerated. Many students learning to fly today begin their experience in planes like the Cirrus and new Cessna, which are fully decked out with advanced, integrated auto-flight and navigation systems.
It was the general opinion of safety experts that this technology would lead to dramatic increases in flight safety. However, expectations did not come true. The FAA concluded that airplanes were safer than ever, so the problem must lay with the pilots. In other words, the problem was a “loose nut behind the wheel.” The solution seemed to be in the development of a training strategy that stressed the psychological side of flying, in other words, “thinking” safety into existence as opposed to the classic “improve stick and rudder skills” approach.
The good folks in FAA land went to the universities, contracted experts in the fields of behavioral studies (shrinks), and developed a program that has been added to all training and testing scenarios. Called Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM), this psychological approach to flying has now become a major part of all training and testing philosophies, with an entire chapter on the subject contained in the FAA bible of aeronautical knowledge, aptly titled “The Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge.” This book is actually a great read and should be in every pilot’s aeronautical library. The principles of ADM are considered so important that a major part of the 16 hours of training a CFI must undergo every two years to maintain certification contains ADM topics. Let’s take a look at the official definition of ADM:
ADM is a systematic approach in the mental process used by pilots to consistently determine the best course of action in respect to a given set of circumstances.
I am sure every reader will instantly remember that definition and understand what it means… okay… perhaps I am being a bit sarcastic. Clearly, a committee of psychology professionals, not pilots, wrote this definition, and it foretells the major problem with ADM. The ADM process is divided into many different topics related to safety, each having a definition similar to that you just read, followed by several complicated, and in some cases, convoluted acronyms, that are supposed to help ADM students understand and apply the principles of ADM. Let me be clear, the intent of ADM is very good, and much of the content is actually little more than common sense. But with at least 10 major subdivision and perhaps twice as many acronyms touting steps to remember as a means of increasing safety, one is compelled to ask the reader, how many of these formal acronyms can you quickly bring to mind? If it is more than five, stop reading, you are better at ADM than I am.
Even though this writer teaches ADM on a regular basis, many of the acronyms, definitions, and “buzz words” associated with ADM come to my mind only when using a lesson plan. All of this would be harmless if it were not for the fact that since replacing “stick and rudder” safety training with “psychological” safety training, a new classification of accident now claims the honor of being first place in fatalities, which is Loss of Control. We seem to have created pilots who completely understand their relationship with their mother, but can’t fly worth a hoot.
Now, having criticized the stress being place upon the mental wellness versus basic stick and rudder skills, let me highlight one ADM model that is, in the opinion of this writer, top notch. If taught in a common sense manner, this model can be applied to every flight. Let’s look at the acronym D E C I D E. Now, that isn’t hard to remember, is it!
D = Detect that something has changed. In other words, when planning a flight (you do plan, right?), you develop a set of expectations as to how the flight will go. You expect your plane to perform in a certain manner, the route of flight to like the chart (or moving map), the weather to turn out as forecasted, turbulence to be as anticipated… and so on. Your plan and the actual flight should stay in sync. However, what if it does not? What if the weather deteriorates, maybe the fuel flow seems a bit high, perhaps the oil pressure a bit low, maybe your passenger become airsick. Is your head out of your tooshy, and do you have good situational awareness? The twin to “DETECT” is “ACCEPT.” This means if you detect that something has changed, accept that it is true. Human behavior tends to defend the psyche by simply denying a bad thing is happening. You need to avoid the defensive mechanism of thinking “this simply cannot be happening to me” and accept the reality that you really do have a bear trying to get into your tent.
E = Estimate the need to react to what you have detected. In the case of the bear at my tent door, this writer decided that running away at a speed just slightly faster than the next guy, screaming like a little girl, will make the other guy look (and sound) like a much better snack. I do not think this strategy works in airplanes. In some cases, no action may be needed, but you log the event in your mind and keep an eye on it. In other cases, action will be needed. The main point here is; do not delay the process of deciding you have to do something. You need to make a positive, actionable decision, even if that action is to continue. At least you are now in the process of evaluating and estimating what comes next.
C = Choose an outcome for the action you take. This is where most pilots make a mistake, often fatal. In the case of my bear scenario, my outcome is to have the bear more interested in the other guy than me, enabling me to escape to the safety of my car. My “choice” ends up with a successful ending for me. But, here is what happens with a lot of pilots. Perhaps they see worsening weather and decide not to continue the flight. They decide to make a 180-degree turn and head the other way. This seems like a good choice, right? No, that’s a bad choice. A 180-degree turn is just a maneuver; it does not end up with the plane being safely on the ground. If you are making that turn to go to an alternate or perhaps return to home base, you have chosen an outcome, not just a maneuver. There is only one safe place for the occupants of an airplane in flight… and that is on the ground. The outcome you chose must insure the safety of you and your passengers, even if that means a precautionary landing on a rural road. Pilots experiencing a progressive engine failure have often just headed for the nearest airport, simply hoping the rumbling critter up front will keep going, when an immediate off airport landing would have been the best choice. Do you know how to pick an emergency landing point? Get some training.
I= Identify what you must do to achieve the outcome you have chosen. Have a plan and then execute it. In the case of my bear, I identified the need to both run faster than the other guy and scream in the most annoying way possible, all while heading for a safe haven. Maybe not the best plan, but it is still a plan. When things start going wrong in flight, do not just flail around. If you are going to head for the nearest airport, have a heading in mind. Use cockpit resources (maybe passenger) to look up airport data. Call ATC, maybe squawk 7,700. If it looks like an emergency off-field landing may be best, manually activate the ELT. The few seconds it takes to develop a plan can eliminate those last-minute decisions needed to save your life when total confusion or panic sets in. Consider that good planning before take off might have had you close to highways and airports throughout the entire flight, or do you just hit the “direct to” button after engine start and consider that good preflight planning?
D = Do the steps you identified. The best plan in the world is useless if you don’t take a shot at implementing it. Do not allow denial to re-enter the picture, causing you to hold your plan in abeyance until “it is really needed.” I would not stay in my tent with a bear at the door “hoping he can’t figure out how to get in.” Implementing my plan immediately and aggressively might be my only hope of running faster than the next guy. I (and you) need a head start on what may become a crisis.
E = Evaluate how the plan is working out. Another principle of ADM is the sin of “continuation bias.” This principle might be what got you into trouble to begin with. We aviators tend to be “type A” characters. Our definition of success is setting a goal and achieving that goal. Nothing will stand in our way. Well, that attitude results in a behavior that will not let you admit that something is wrong. Now that you have a plan to deal with the problem you detected in step one of the DECIDE model, constantly evaluate that plan to make sure that it is working. Given the wide variety of things that can enter the world of flight, keep an open mind and if need be, go back to the beginning of the DECIDE model and run another iteration. This writer remembers events that ended up with my plane having an inexcusably low amount of fuel remaining during an IFR flight. Having declared an emergency and taking vectors to the closest airport (chosen plan), I was still 15 minutes from the alternate destination when I suddenly broke into VFR conditions with an unknown airport immediately below me. I changed my plan and immediately chopped power and landing at that unknown airport. I was embarrassed, ATC was upset, but my plane, and passengers were on the ground and safe. I got over it, and ATC just scolded me… well deserved. However, the outcome is the goal.
So, there you are, a rant about ADM and then a discussion of an ADM model that works very well. Come to think of it, there are a couple of other good ADM models that I can remember. Maybe a review of the ADM process is in order.
