VAI/Tommaso Munforti Warranted risk: Assessing the missing variable Looking beyond probability and severity in public safety aviation. By Chris Hill Government, military, and public safety aviation exist because society needs professionals to do what others are unable or unwilling to do, all while accepting elevated levels of known risk. We understand why public safety operators take on high-risk missions. But, importantly: • How do they manage elevated risk? And, • What factors do they consider when making go/no-go decisions? Traditional risk management systems focus on two variables: probability (likelihood) and severity (consequence). For commercial operators, that keeps things simple: If the risk is too high, the flight crew must reduce the risk to an acceptable level or avoid it altogether. That’s nothing groundbreaking for readers who consider themselves proficient pilots and flight planners. For those who conduct government, military, or public safety operations, however, does mission type factor into your risk-based policy and preflight decisions? If not, perhaps it should. Gain: The Missing Variable What’s often absent from the formal risk assessment process is a third variable: gain. Public safety organizations would do well to incorporate gain into doctrine, policy, and mission planning, because pilots are likely already considering it on the fly—literally. A lack of structured guidance creates the conditions for poor dynamic decision-making driven by noble intentions or heightened emotions. The resulting target fixation or mission mentality all too often leads to preventable tragedy. Most agencies have formal methods for assessing risk; few have formal methods for evaluating gain. Instead, gain frequently enters the equation informally through a frantic call, driving rushed or poor decisions. Examples may include: • “There’s a child involved.” • “The suspect is considered armed.” • “The fire is threatening critical infrastructure.” • “Someone may still be alive.” Responding to these calls is routine, but what process is used to justify launch? One of the US Coast Guard’s most celebrated and decorated aviators, Vice Admiral John P. Currier, challenged his service’s flight crews to consider whether the risk they accept is warranted when weighed against the potential gain. Currier asserted that Coast Guard crews must always consider the gain: mission value, public benefit, lives saved, property protected, or threats mitigated. His article “Risk Management for the Proficient Operator,” published in the August 2013 issue of the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings, recognized that not all risks are equal because not all missions are equal. He argued that professional operators must differentiate between: • Manageable risk, • Warranted risk, and • Unwarranted risk. “If bad things happen while you are conducting a proper mission in a professional manner, leadership at all levels will stand behind you,” Currier says. That philosophy now resides on page 1 of the Coast Guard’s Air Operations Manual, which states: “In the operational environment, mission demands may require on-scene deviation from prescribed instructions or policy when, in the judgment of the pilot in command, such deviation is necessary for flight safety or the saving of human life.” A Common Framework Is gain influencing your crews’ decisions? Almost certainly. The question is whether your organization acknowledges it. When flight crews respond to a missing child, an active shooter, a stranded hiker, or a mariner in distress, are they evaluating only probability and severity? Or are they also considering the potential gain of a successful mission? If gain is already part of the decision-making process, is it addressed in policy, training, and doctrine? Is it understood consistently across the organization? Or does each crew develop its own interpretation based on experience, culture, and circumstance? Two crews facing identical circumstances may reach different conclusions regarding mission acceptance. One may launch. The other may decline. Neither decision is necessarily wrong. The concern is whether both crews are applying the same organizational framework, or whether they are making ad hoc or subjective risk-versus-gain calculations without clear guidance. Admiral Currier’s concept of warranted risk recognizes that while some missions carry extraordinary value, that value doesn’t grant unlimited permission to accept extraordinary risk. If your crews are already making risk-versus-gain calculations in the cockpit, perhaps it’s time to ensure that your organization’s policies, training programs, and leadership expectations provide a common framework for making those decisions correctly. “Discussing these parameters at 0 agl and 0 kt. is the cornerstone of successful missions for your crews—they need to know what your organization will and will not accept,” says Mark Bruno, current chief of safety and environmental health for the Coast Guard and a former MH-65D pilot. Disclaimer: Each organization must establish a unique risk management policy based on the organization’s underlying doctrine, legal authorities, operational environment, and mission requirements. Chris Hill is VAI’s senior director of safety.
