Applying Technology to Flight Risk Assessment Tools

A flight risk assessment tool (FRAT) can be an extremely effective and powerful resource to improve pilot decision making and complement a flight operation’s safety management system, or SMS. Increasingly, business aircraft operators are turning to new technologies to move the FRAT beyond a simple checklist.

“Risk management is essential to an effective safety program,” said Flying W Aviation, LLC Founder Jeff Wofford, CAM Fellow and former chair of the NBAA Safety Committee. “If a FRAT is too complicated, though, a pilot won’t use it. So, we must look at methods that are fair, effective and efficient.”

FRATs come in many forms, including paper checklists that rely on the pilot to determine the level of risk for a given flight based on relatively easily defined metrics such as weather, fatigue and pilot experience. Answers may be ranked by number; the higher the final total, the “riskier” the flight.

“We need to take this process more seriously,” Wofford added. “There have been a lot of accidents over the years in which the outcomes would’ve been a lot better had the pilots sat down and truly performed a flight risk assessment.”

“I think of FRATs as a two-pronged tool,” said Robbie Moon, captain for a Fortune 100 company and member of the NBAA Domestic Operations Committee (DOC). “First, they’re a way for the company at large to ascertain risk at the tactical level and limit exposure to those risks. And they’re also a way to communicate those risks to other people within the organization.”

More advanced examples include tablet and smartphone apps that follow the basic layout of paper FRATs, either as standalone software or as part of an electronic flight bag. Most third-party flight planning providers also include FRATs as part of their services.

With the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) across many aspects of the industry and society at large, it’s not surprising to also see automation applied to the FRAT process. New programs pull weather conditions, airport information and other metrics and provide a largely automated risk assessment for a given flight.

While flight crews may balk at the thought of an AI-generated FRAT, David Keys, chair of the NBAA DOC and chief pilot for Peace River Citrus Products, noted the advantage of objective results over subjective assessments.

“We started with a traditional FRAT at our operation, in which we’d come up with a number for runway conditions, for example, or crew rest,” he said. “Those numbers would then give us a final score of ‘green,’ ‘yellow’ or ‘red.’

“The problem with that,” he continued, “is that we’re a mission-focused industry. It soon became clear to us that our FRAT was basically a game of, ‘How can I adjust the numbers to let me go fly?'”

Automation in FRATs: ‘The Big Difference Maker’

The application of AI to the risk assessment process removes that element of temptation to provide an objective perspective, adding integrity to the results. It may also yield other benefits.

“Automation is really the big difference maker in my mind,” said Matthew Simmonds, vice chair of the NBAA DOC. “An integrated risk assessment tool pulls available information as soon as a trip is scheduled and flags possible risk factors weeks before pilots even know there’s a trip coming.”

For example, such tools can quickly match aircraft performance data against available runway lengths, even weeks ahead of time, and continually monitor NOTAMs for possible closures and other relevant factors.

Weather forecasts, crew proficiency and rest, and other operational requirements may also be factored in, providing additional time to mitigate any risks and match the most qualified flight crew to the trip.

“FRATs are great tools to help flight crews and managers identify risks and improve their decision making,” Simmonds added. “But it’s my opinion that automation and technological advancements are leading the way toward better ways of accomplishing that task.”

Keys noted his operation uses one such platform that automates the data gathering process. “It provides factual observations over arbitrary assessments,” he said. “The program knows our performance limitations. If it’s going to be rainy, it warns us that our aircraft’s wet performance limits don’t allow us to use the shorter runway at the airport.

“It’s still up to us to make the final decision,” he added, “but it brings a welcome added perspective. The platform also shares observations from other users, like if there’s wildlife on the airport. That information would never show up on my paper FRAT, but it pops right up on my [automated] risk briefing.”

While acknowledging that “there is room for technological improvements and automations in the process,” Moon recommended the approach taken by one Part 135 operator that merged FRATs with crew briefings to review and discuss flight conditions and risk factors.

“The captain might ask the first officer, ‘What risks do you see today?’ and that prompts a discussion,” he said. “Some crew members may not see the same risks, while others have the chance to voice their concerns. A briefing is a great way to clarify everybody’s thoughts and concerns and then address how to mitigate those risks.

“Maybe the greatest risk of a FRAT is that it’s easy for the process to become rote,” Moon added. “A dedicated briefing slows down that process and gives pilots the chance to get centered on the task at hand.”

Standardizing the Flight Risk Assessment Tool Process

Establishing a FRAT may seem daunting to flight operations that lack a formal risk assessment process. “Getting from zero all the way to a customized FRAT is a big ask for a lot of operations,” Moon said, “and may not be appropriate or possible for smaller outfits.

“A good first step might be simplifying things to just two questions,” he added. “Before the flight, the captain might ask the first officer, ‘what risks do you see today?’ And then after the flight, ask each other ‘what can I do better next time?’

Keys suggested AI-assisted FRAT models may offer advantages for small flight operations. “If one pilot in a two-pilot operation identifies a ‘yellow’ risk, odds are the other pilot will say ‘let’s go,” he said. “There is no chief pilot or director of operations to prompt another look at it and identify the need to mitigate that risk.

“As AI rolls out it just makes sense that it will add to the safety dynamics of SMS,” Keys added.

Regardless of what form a risk assessment may take, Wofford emphasized the need for standardized industry criteria throughout the process. “One flight department might assign a risk factor of ‘3’ for a condition that another might consider a ‘2’ or ‘4,’” Keys said. “Those numbers become arbitrary or subjective.

“On the opposite side of that coin,” he continued, “we can’t make the FRAT so routine that pilots are just going down the line and checking off boxes without paying attention to what they’re doing. It can never be something pilots do just for the sake of doing it, or because the flight department requires one.”

Simmonds also emphasized the need for flight operations to identify a risk assessment method that matches their needs.

“There’s a gradient from ‘paper and pencil’ FRATs up to advanced AI-assisted programs,” he concluded. “In between are Excel spreadsheets and flight planning providers. Whatever you choose, it comes down to the user and the culture of the flight operation.”