This article is published in Aviation Week & Space Technology and is free to read until Jun 06, 2025. If you want to read more articles from this publication, please click the link to subscribe.
The business aviation environment operates into a wide spectrum of airports, creating additional risk for a runway excursion as pictured here.
The Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) concept applies equally well to business aviation as to general aviation. A well-designed FRAT can provide proactive identification of specific risks as well as the accumulation of risk for the flight. In addition, FRAT fits well into a Safey Management System (SMS), which will become mandatory for most of the industry within a couple years.
Each operator should take the opportunity to custom design a FRAT for their pilot experience, qualifications and training, the mission, aircraft operating characteristics and the flight environment. Operators should consider that some factors carry more risk and should receive more points in the risk calculation.
The Flight Safety Foundation’s Approach and Landing Accident Reduction (ALAR) awareness tool is worth integrating into an organization’s FRAT. Let’s expound on this.
For example, is the pilot familiar with the destination? Some might wonder why this is important. Unfamiliarity increases human error by 17 times according to the research conducted by psychologist James Reason. ALAR doubles the risk weighting for this parameter.
The ALAR tool doubles the risk points for pilot fatigue. Here is the caveat with pilot self-assessment of the fatigue level. Nearly every in-depth study on pilot fatigue has noted that pilots consistently under-rate their level of fatigue and alertness. Eventually we as an industry need to implement a better method that has undergone thorough scientific review to objectively assess a pilot’s fatigue and alertness.
Airports And Runways
The Airport category needs to be customized for the specific type of aircraft. For instance, a proficient flight crew flying a straight-wing Citation has a sufficient safety margin flying into Hilton Head Airport, but jets that require longer landing distances aren’t compatible with this location. The runway length parameter should include a comparison of the predicted landing distance for the forecasted weather and runway surface conditions versus the runway’s actual length and width.
The ALAR tool doubles risk for crosswind, gusts, tail wind, and wind shear. The combination of crosswinds with a slippery runway increases the risk, especially with a narrower runway. This parameter also may need heavier weighting for aircraft that have tighter crosswind limitations. I would also suggest adding the parameter of density altitude in the category of aircraft or airport environment conditions.
Accurately predicting the effects of wind, temperature and runway surface conditions are vital to every takeoff and landing. There are many reasons why the actual runway environmental conditions can vary significantly from the reported values. This uncertainty increases risk.
The ALAR tool doubles the risk score for lack of current local weather reports, as well as for adverse runway conditions to include ice, slush, snow or water. Business aviation often operates into a wide spectrum of airports, many of which are non-towered and have limited resources. ALAR triples the risk for this parameter.
Runways at many business aviation destinations do not include features such as crowning, grooves and porous filled concrete to minimize the pooling of water. This category should receive extra points when the likelihood of precipitation exists.
The assessment of the approaches needs to be considered with respect to the weather as well as the adjacent terrain. For example, a 2,000-ft. ceiling and 3 statue mi. visibility is rather unremarkable in terms of risk at a midwestern airport served with an ILS and surrounded by flat terrain, but that weather is below minimums at many airports in the Rocky Mountains.
Non-precision approaches create higher risk, especially with step-down procedures or circling. ALAR triples the risk for this category. A visual approach in darkness is given double points by the tool.
Does the pilot have the training and qualifications if the destination fits the concept of a Special Qualification Airport? Many business aviation destinations truly fit this definition and flight crews need to be trained to be proficient and current on location-specific procedures.
ALAR assigns double points to the risk for a destination surrounded by adverse terrain. Frankly, some airports visited by business aviation should receive even higher risk ratings, especially the mountain bowl locations with high density altitudes and challenging approach and departure procedures.
The powerful visual illusions caused by heavy rain or blowing snow have tricked many flight crews into landing short of the threshold. Several notable business aviation destinations have unusual runway slopes that create a pronounced visual illusion on the landing approach. ALAR doubles the risk if visual illusions are present from sloping terrain, wet runway, white out, or snow.
The post-maintenance test flight accident involving a Hawker 900XP on Dec. 20, 2023, and the Apache helicopter mishap cited earlier are indicative that post-maintenance test flights, orientation flights and flight instruction contain their own unique risks and should utilize customized FRATs.
In Part 3 of this article, we explain how a Flight Risk Assessment Tool should be modified for helicopter operations.
For A Flight Risk Assessment Tool For BizAv, Part 1, click here.
Related Content
