Question 13: “As you now know, true aviation
stories about hazards that have been encountered are
important to this program. Can you offer a story from
your flying experience, that other pilots should know
about to increase their ability to make safe decisions?”

Vv Yesterday I was very tempted to put wheels down on
a very turbulent small runway because a student
aborted in front of me and an experienced pilot was
behind me. All three of us aborted the landing.
One of my guidelines is to read back everything given
to me by acontroller; that has solved a lot of potential
problems, Along with “reading back” information to
controllers make sure to talk or question them when-
ever you are unsure about anything. Now for my
story! I was cleared to take off from the parking ramp
at a control tower field when I requested a taxi
clearance. I read the clearance back to the tower
which did not respond. So I taxied out to the runway
and was about to roll across the hold short line when
Thad a funny feeling. I then stopped and radioed the
tower that I was assuming the active, It turned out
that they did not intend for me to take the active.
Too many; IFR instruction cross-country in IMC.
After turn on ILS, we were given a hold for an
inbound emergency aircraft with no NAV radios.
The aircraft was a Citation with just bad radios
installed which the crew neglected to check out and
took off with minimum fuel. They got a radar
approach into 700-L. We then got an ILS and
landed.

I’m a student pilot, recently I was doing closed
pattern solo work at Manassas. Visibility deterio-
rated and there were several others, all doing same
pattern work, when 3 other aircraft joined pattern I
landed after deciding it was too busy for my skill level
given the diminishing visibility.

Question 14: “This program has been designed to
provide general aviation pilots with a structured method
to develop their own personal minimums. Will such a
program be helpful in assuring your own personal safety?
If yes, how will it help you? If no, why not?”

V Lalready do a similar procedure, albeit not as
explicitly in my own go/no go and decision
making. As a CFI, I attempt to instill it in my
students.

V_ Thave used [Personal Minimums] for a long time
but not so much on personal levels, may rethink
areas from GA standpoint.

Suggest computer aided instruction that allows a
final [summary] and a session that establishes a
printed profile when complete.

Not really — I already have had personal mini-
mums for a very long time; most of the pilots I
know have them as well.

V

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report has described a preliminary evalua-
tion of a personal minimums training program
conducted in a field setting. The training program
was conducted in most cases as part of a normally
scheduled FAA safety seminar and was approxi-
mately two hours in length. At the conclusion of
the training program the participants were asked to
complete a brief evaluation of the training pro-
gram, consisting of both multiple-choice and open-
ended questions. Approximately 25% of the seminar
participants completed the evaluation form. This
sample replicates the distribution of private pilots
in the population (almost half of seminar partici-
pants), but underrepresents student pilots, while
overrepresenting commercial pilots and certified
flight instructors. Seminar locations were chosen so as
to broadly represent different regions of the United
States. These samples, therefore, represent samples of
convenience and should be considered as such when
assessing the generalizability of these results.

Subject to the limitations on generalizability
noted above, the respondents’ responses demon-
strate that those pilots who receive the training
believe that personal minimums training is helpful
and that they will use it in the future in their pre-
flight decision making. Further, they would rec-
ommend personal minimums training to other
pilots and believe that it would be well received.
Respondents also indicated that the core concepts
of the training program were understood. These
findings were noted both in the multiple-choice
questions and in the respondents’ responses to the
open-ended questions.

These results are interpreted as providing sup-
port to the continued development of the personal
minimums training program using both video and


The instructor uses the discussion summary to
reinforce the requirement for review and revision
of the personal minimums checklist, and to check
regularly one’s checklist during biennial flight re-
views, instrument currency checks, safety program
participation, or other recurrent training. A per-
sonal minimums checklist should be considered a
flexible document that develops and changes with
time and experience.

In closing, the facilitator reminds each pilot that
the personal minimums checklist is unique to her
or him. Other pilots’ minimums will be different.
The set of risk factors and checklist provided is
never complete. They must be reviewed frequently
and changed as required to accommodate the chang-
ing pilot activities and capabilities. To provide
each pilot with further sources of information,
they are referred to advisory circulars, magazines,
books, newsletter (IFR Refresher, FAA Safety Re-
view, etc.), and standard pilot references (Airman’s
Information Manual, FARs, etc.).

PROCEDURE

In the present study, the above described personal
minimums training seminar was introduced and field
tested in FAA seminars and other meetings across the
USA. The primary objective of the field testing was to
evaluate the acceptability of the training program to
the general aviation community. This objective was
addressed by gathering participant responses to mul-
tiple choice questions regarding: (1) the perceived
utility of the program; (2) the intent of the partici-
pants to utilize personal minimums in the future; (3)
the participants assessment of the clarity of presenta-
tion of the core concepts; and, (4) the participants
preferences and opinions regarding training. Free-
response questions also were used to solicit partici-
pant input regarding, for example, what they liked
best and least about the program. The field test also
provided an opportunity to familiarize FAA Aviation
Safety Program Managers (SPMs) with the training
program, and to refine the program through modifi-
cations to the format and delivery as a result of
comments received both from participants and
from SPMs.

We must point out that, to a very large degree,
the design and conduct of the study were dictated
by the constraints of a field test environment.
Specifically, by electing to evaluate the training

program in the context in which it would eventu-
ally be utilized (viz. FAA safety seminars) the
controls which might be present in a laboratory
study were sacrificed. While we chose the locations
of the field test sites so as to obtain a broad
geographic representation of the United States, no
such control was available over who elected to
attend the safety seminars, which were simply ad-
vertised in the usual way. Neither could we de-
mand that participants complete the post-training
evaluation form, nor could we obtain rosters of par-
ticipants for later follow-up. These sacrifices are cer-
tainly considerable, but we believe that the benefits
obtained from obtaining the reactions of typical semi-
nar participants in the settings in which the training
is designed to be used justify that sacrifice.

Testing was first done by presenting the live pro-
gram as described above to Ohio State University
students and instructors as a part of their regular
aviation classroom courses. Then the program was
given to pilot groups in the Columbus, Ohio local
area including the Columbus FSDO, which orga-
nized an audience of Part 135 operators, the Wright-
Patterson AFB flying club in Dayton, a chapter meeting
of a local Civil Air Patrol, a local chapter meeting of
Glassair builders and pilots, and a local flying club
(Central Ohio Flyer’s Association). Following each of
these presentations changes were suggested and made
to improve the training.

The program was then taken on the road to the
EAA Convention at Oshkosh and to FAA FSDOs
in Baltimore- Washington, Anchorage, Long Beach,
and Chicago. Finally, it was presented in Washing-
ton at the FAA’s Hanger 6 pilot safety meeting.
The attendance at each of these seminars is shown
below in Table 1. After each presentation, changes
were made to improve the program, the student
material, and the visual material. The final pro-
gram shown in Appendix A reflects the ideas and
responses from participants in these seminars.

Data Collection and Analysis

At the completion of each seminar, participants
were asked to immediately complete the evaluation
sheet shown in the Appendix. The questions on
this evaluation were designed to gather data on
specific questions regarding how well the partici-
pants understood the concepts as well as how they
felt about the program itself. We wanted to know
if participants thought that the program would be




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This program was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration and conducted under contract
DTFA01-92-10204.

The authors thank Mr. Roger M. Baker, Jr., Manager, National Aviation Safety Program (AFS-810),
Office of Flight Standards, for his assistance and support during this program.

The authors also thank Larry Kirkbride, who developed the original program, and Keith Hall, Ph.D.,
for his many vital contributions and for introducing the concept of “Engaged Learning” to this program.

The authors also thank the numerous unnamed pilots from across the United States for their invaluable

suggestions and candid discussions.

iii


computer-aided instruction formats. It is important
to note, however, that this field test did not evaluate
the training effectiveness of this program. Although
pilot acceptance of the program may well be essential
for its implementation and use, acceptance does not
imply effectiveness. While we believe that the con-
cepts of a priori risk assessment and proceduralization
of the decision making process have the potential to
reduce pilot risk and improve safety, this limited
study did not address that supposition.

Asa follow on, we recommended that studies be
conducted that assess the degree to which training
on the use of personal minimums results in both
the use of this tool in flight planning (as contrasted
with the intent to use the tool, as assessed in the
current study) and in changes in pilot behavior
which result in better risk management, as evi-
denced, for example, by adherence to more conser-
vative operational minimums or in lowered
incidences of high risk activities. Such studies
might utilize the semi-controlled approach such as
that used by Buch (1984) and Diehl and Lester
(1987) in their validation of a pilot judgment
training program. An alternative and perhaps more
feasible approach is to employ a field-oriented
approach in concert with the fielding of the train-
ing program, in which rosters of training partici-
pants are developed and they are tracked over a
number of years to assess differential incident and
accident rates. Other approaches are also possible,
but whatever the choice of study design the valida-
tion of training impact is a non-trivial matter that
will require a substantial investment of effort,
time, and resources. Even so, the benefit of such
studies is substantial as they provide a means of
estimating the impact, and hence the cost-benefit,
of the training program.

Finally, let us note that, typically, behavioral
change does not happen as a result of attending one
seminar. Therefore, just as the airline industry has
found in CRM, it is important to continue to offer
variations of personal minimums training repeat-
edly to the same pilots. These variations could take
the form of different scenarios in a classroom
format, videos, computer-based-training, or
internet formats. Refresher training is a central
concept in aviation that recognizes the fleeting
nature of human knowledge and skill, and is a
concept that certainly should not be ignored here.

13

REFERENCES

Buch, G. (1984) An investigation of the effectiveness of
pilot judgment training. Human Factors, 26, 557-
64.

Diehl, A.E., & Lester, L.F. (1987). Private pilot judg-
ment training in flight school settings. DOT/FAA/
AM-87/6. Washington, DC; Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine.
Available from: National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161. Order #
ADA209327.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Evanstan, IL: Row, Peterson.

Klein, G.A. (1993). A recognition-primed decision
(RPD) model of rapid decision making. In: G.A.
Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Caldewood, and C.E.
Zsambok, Decision making in action: Models and
methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corpo-
ration.

Kirkbride, L.A, Jensen, R.S., Chubb, G.P., & Hunter,
D.R. (1996). Developing the personal minimums
tool for managing risk during preflight golno-go deci-
sions. DOT/FAA/AM-96/19. Washington, DC:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Avia-
tion Medicine. Available from: National Techni-
cal Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
Order # ADA313639.

McCutcheon, D. (1991). I learned about flying from
that: Better late than never. Flying Magazine, May
1991, pages 118-9.

McElhatton, J. & Drew, C. (1993). Time pressure as a
causal factor in aviation safety incidents: The
“hurry-up” syndrome. In: R.S. Jensen & D.
Neumeister (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Inter-
national Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp.
269-74). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State Uni-
versity.


15. Biographical information. In order for us to evaluate how this training is being used we would like to be
able to contact you in a few months to see if you are using the information. This would just be a one or
two page survey like the one you just completed and would greatly help us in evaluating this program.
If you would consider taking part in that evaluation, please provide your name and address below so
that we may contact you.

Age: Educational Level: __ High School Name:
(check highest) —— College Address:
Female: _—- Graduate
Male: —— Post-Graduate
Phone:
e-mail:

Flight Experience:
Total Number of Hours:
Certificate/Ratings Held:

If you are unable to complete this form here at the seminar, please do so at home and return it to: OSU

Aviation Research, 164 W. 19th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210. Thank you for participating with us in this
general aviation training development effort.

AS XUS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1998 - 660-088/60059


APPENDIX A

PERSONAL MINIMUMS COURSE EVALUATION FORM

Al


Table 5. Learning experiences ranked “Best” by respondents

N %
Lecture 49 29
Small Groups 83 49
Guided Discussion 39 23
Other 0 0
Total 171

Table 6. Learning media ranked “Best” by respondents

N %
Overheads 25 16
Slides 18 11
Video 56 35
Computer Aided 59 37
Instruction
Other 1 1
Total 159

Table 7. Key implementation factors ranked “Best” by respondents

N %
Applicability 53 33
Realism 42 26
Accuracy 14 9
Meaningfulness 52 32
Other 1 1

Total 162

10


Incident and accident data such as these are not
surprising. A flight is a sequence of events that are
related and influenced by prior events. Once the
commitment to flight is made, a strong psycho-
logical force exists in the pilot’s mind to continue
to the intended destination. Also, social or peer
pressure may make admitting an error and turning
around difficult or seemingly impossible. Further-
more, once airborne, certain options disappear,
including the option to add more fuel. Pilots need
to recognize the extent of the forces that will be
applied to them once they make the decision to fly
and factor them into their preflight go/no-go deci-
sion, risk management is an important part of the
overall task of flying airplanes.

All pilots recognize that there are risks in their
flying activities and that some activities are riskier
than others. Many pilots will not perform certain
kinds of flying activities under certain circum-
stances but may do those same flying activities
under other circumstances. For example, some pi-
lots will fly a single-engine aircraft at night over
mountains with a student in training who needs
such experience but may be reluctant to do so with
their own family (unless they have an important
business meeting the next day at their destination).
Although most pilots have not established guide-
lines for these types of decisions, they are, in fact,
risk management decisions.

All of us can be pressured into taking risks by
our circumstances. What causes you to take risks
that you might not otherwise take? When you are
in a long line of cars at a busy intersection, how
long does the gap in traffic need to be before you
will risk turning left across and into the traffic?
Does the risk gap get shorter as you wait longer? If
the driver behind you is honking? If you are in a
hurry to catch a plane? If you have impatient
passengers? We take risks in flight for many very
legitimate reasons (e.g., transportation, conve-
nience, economics). Sometimes, we make risky
choices based on less legitimate reasons as well.
After a close call, many people rationalize, “I had
no choice, I had to do it.” Safety in our aviation
system depends, to a great extent, upon the amount
of control we exercise over our choices to take risks.

In well established flying organizations, such as
airlines and corporations, some of the risk manage-
ment is governed by the establishment of clearly
defined limits or minimums (Standard Operating

Procedures or SOPs) for flying activity. On the
other hand, most general aviation pilots do not
have a large organization that limits pilots’ flying
choices. Risk management for these pilots is left
almost entirely to their discretion under the scru-
tiny of the FAA. In the area of preflight decision
making, the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs)
state a pilot is to “become familiar with ALL
available information concerning the flight” (FAR
91.103) and that the pilot is “directly responsible
for” and “the final authority as to the operation of
the aircraft” (FAR 91.3a). Furthermore, FAR 91.13
requires that the aircraft be operated in a way that
it does not endanger the life or property of others.
Nevertheless, in setting these limits, which are
based upon the expected performance of fully com-
petent pilots, the FAA still places most of the
responsibility for risk management in the hands of
the individual pilot Before each flight the indi-
vidual pilot must determine whether his or her
currency and aircraft meet this expected level of
skill and capability. If these levels are not met,
pilot judgment is expected to produce more con-
servative operational minimums for that situation.
The training program described in this report is
predicated upon the belief that appropriate per-
sonal minimums training can increase the aware-
ness of the pilots to certain risks. Furthermore,
individual pilot commitment to follow self-devel-
oped guidelines will increase the likelihood that
there would be a reduction in pre-take-off decisional
errors and a corresponding improvement in safety.

FIELD TEST AND EVALUATION

In the present study, this new personal mini-
mums training program was introduced and field
tested in FAA seminars and other meetings across
the USA. The primary objectives of the testing
were to determine the acceptability of the training
program to the general aviation community, to
familiarize FAA Aviation Safety Program Manag-
ers with the training program, and to refine the
program preparatory to delivery asa finished prod-
uct suitable for distribution through the FAA safety
training programs.

As field tested, the training program consists of
five parts, 1) an introduction to the concepts of
preflight decision making, risk management, and
personal minimums, 2) the development of a list of


Figure 1.

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.

Table 8.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES
Errors by pilots resulting in incidents ......sssssssescsseesssessseessseesseeecsvecessecsnsecsacersseesnecsnecenneentes 1
LIST OF TABLES

Approximate attendance at personal minimums seminars, .......essssessssesesesseesseeesneesseessseess 7

FAA certificates and ratings of responding participant . .......ssseccsssssessssseeessetecssnsecsssneesssues 7

Respondents’ reactions to training program
Respondents’ understanding of training materials. .........ssssssssessseecsneessnecsseecsssesssecssecsssecesse 9
Learning experiences ranked “Best” by respondents .........ssesesssessssesssesssseesseessssessssessscessecess 10

Learning media ranked “Best” by respondents...

Key implementation factors ranked “Best” by respondents ......ssssscsssesesssneesssssesscssseecessneees 10

Program length ranked “Best” by respondents. .......sssssssecsssesseessseessressueecsucsennesssessnecesneees ll




closely by meaningfulness (32%). Finally, the modal
choice for optimal program length was 60 minutes
(Table 8).

Five open-ended questions allowed the respon-
dents to provide input not constrained by the
multiple-choice format. In addition to three ques-
tions dealing specifically with the training semi-
nar, two questions were included that solicited
general information regarding the respondents’
personal flying experiences and their opinions on
how this program might be applied specifically to
them. The specific questions and a few responses,
chosen to represent the typical content, are given
below.

Question 10: “What do you see as the most impor-
tant component of this seminar?”

v
4

Makes you reconsider your personal minimums.
Determining those few “inviolate” factors and estab-
lish a go/no-go point for those factors making people
aware that they are already (probably) using personal
minimums. This program just formalizes the pro-
cess.

By having a checklist, irrespective of its dynamic
nature, forces you to look at each item. keeps you
from overlooking something.

Decision making awareness training.

Question 11: “What did you like best about the
seminar?”

Review risks, develop idea, then help review how to
develop guidelines.

To get people to think about their personal mini-
mumsas opposed to talking vaguely about judgment.
Preparation of your own personal minimum check-
list.

Stressing self-development and ownership.

The guided discussion without it feeling like an
exam.

Relevance, get me started thinking about formalizing
a checklist for myself,

Everyone opening up about things they’ve learned
the hard way.

Group Discussion & personal experiences.

V
V
V
;
V
V
V

Question 12: “What did you dislike about the seminar?”

Could be seen as yet another regulation.

Too simplistic, overly basic, covers too many obvious
items. experienced pilots should long ago have devel-
oped their own minimums.

The hanger was a lousy environment-bad acoustics,
couldn’t see the screen, noisy birds, etc.

Group was probably too large for fully exploring
ideas presented.

Too little time to fill out this form and personal
minimums from discussion.

Was too short. I was looking forward to hearing more
statistics as to what types of activities lead pilots into
incidents and accidents.

a

Table 8. Program length ranked “Best” by respondents

30 minutes
45 minutes
60 minutes
90 minutes
Other

Total

N %
18 11
30 18
68 40
54 32

1 1

11


AN EVALUATION OF PrLorT ACCEPTANCE OF THE PERSONAL MINIMUMS
TRAINING PROGRAM FOR RIsk MANAGEMENT

BACKGROUND

In a previous study, a preliminary training program
was developed to help pilots develop personal mini-
mums for risk management in pre-take-off go/no-go
decisions (Kirkbride, Jensen, Chubb, and Hunter, 1996).
The purpose of the program was to give pilots an
opportunity to make a commitment to follow self-
determined guidelines for many decisions that they
make regarding safety prior to the take-off decision. We
believed that through such a commitment, pilots would
be more likely to follow through than they would if the
guidelines were developed and imposed by a regulatory
agency. Aviation safety is more dependent on pilots
using judgment concerning their own capabilities to
perform, given their circumstances, than it is upon pilots
following regulations. This program was designed to
help pilots develop that type of judgment.

The motivation for this research and intervention
can be seen in the data presented in Figure 1. As shown
in these data from the NASA ASRS program
(McElhatton & Drew, 1993), most errors that lead to
incidents are made prior to the take-off. Of the 125
Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) incident
reports reviewed in their study, 90% of all time-
related human errors occurred in the preflight or
taxi-out phase of operation (e.g., the KLM crew who
felt pressure to take-off before their “duty time” ex-
pired and crashed into another aircraft on a runway in
Tenerife in 1977). Similarly, accidents are typically
the result of a series of errors made by the flight crew,
many of which are made prior to take-off.

Error Occurrence

Incident Occurrence

c
©
a
ay
a)

Preflight
Taxi-Out

Climb

Figure 1. Errors made by pilots and their resulting incidents

(McElhatton & Drew, 1993).


Group__. Instructor. Date.

Personal Minimums Seminar Evaluation

Thank you for participating in this experimental OSU/FAA Personal Minimums Seminar. We consider your
insight to be highly important to the development of the finished program. The following questions are
designed to help you communicate your ideas to us regarding how we can make this the best general
aviation safety program that it can be. Please give us your ideas by answering the following questions. Feel
free to add other comments as well.

1, To what degree will this program be helpful to you? (check one) Extremely Helpful
Helpful

Neutral

Not Helpful
Contradictory

2. Will you use Personal Minimums to assist in your pre-take-off
decisions in the future? (check one)

Definitely
Maybe
Unsure
No

3. Would you recommend this seminar to other aviators? ___ Yes
—— No
4, How do you think this program will be received by general aviation pilots? —— Very Positive
(check one) _— Positive
__ Neutral
—— Negative
Very Negative

5. Please indicate your level of understanding of each of the following (check one box for each topic):

Personal Minimums Risk Factors Developing Guidelines

Easily understood a a —
Somewhat understood —- --- —
Unsure — —- —
Somewhat confusing a —_— —
Very Confusing — a a

6. Please rank order what you believe to be the optimum length for this program. ___ 30 minutes

(1=best; 4=worst) —— 45 minutes

60 minutes

90 minutes

—— Other (specify


DOT/FAA/AM-98/6 An Evaluation of Pilot

oo Acceptance of the Personal
Office of Aviation Medicine . oo se
Washington, D.C. 20591 Minimums Training Program
for Risk Management

Richard S. Jensen
James E. Guilkey

The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210

David R. Hunter

Office of Aviation Medicine
Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, DC 20591

February 1998

Final Report

This document is available to the public
through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

@

U.S. Department
of Transportation

Federal Aviation
Administration


How can we apply the experience of these highly
supervised operations to individual private pilot
flying? Application of personal minimums offers
an approach to improving risk assessment and
management by self-supervision. Personal assign-
ment of minimums requires an awareness of the
risk factors involved before one can attempt to
manage them. Furthermore, because some pilots
may think that their responsibility ends with un-
derstanding their own safety risk, personal mini-
mums training teaches them to acknowledge and
consider the level of risk that is acceptable to passen-
gers, the company, or others potentially affected by any
flight consequences.

Following the introduction, participants should
have the knowledge necessary to move into risk
identification. In addition, they should be moti-
vated to make risk assessment a priority for their
own flying. Finally, they should have developed a
level of comfort in sharing ideas with the facilita-
tor and the rest of the group which will enable
them to move on to discussing personal issues.

Risk factors. The second part of the training
program is an individual activity in which the
students are asked to generate and categorize a list
of preflight risk factors. Research has shown that
when people make decisions, they usually consider
only a very small number of factors (Klein, 1993).
The purpose of this activity is to expand the pilot’s
knowledge base of risk factors concerning preflight
decision making and to classify them into catego-
ries that are easily recalled when needed. It is
expected that better decisions will result from con-
sidering more risk factors and knowing how they
interrelate. Risk awareness is an effective tool to
increase safety but requires knowledge, experience,
and a commitment to use one’s knowledge.

Pilots are aware that flying is risky and that
certain activities in flight are more hazardous than
others. However, most pilots have not given much
thought to the development of a risk management
program for themselves. If they fly for a company,
they may blindly follow the SOPs of that company
without tailoring the program to fit their own
knowledge, skills, and circumstances.

To stimulate thinking about risk factors and
how they apply to preflight decisions, this section
of the seminar offers one or more case studies in the
form of “trigger tapes” of situations that are used
to help participants understand the concepts and

develop a set of risk factors often faced in preflight
decisions. One excellent example was published in
Flying Magazine's, “I learned about Flying From
That” (McCutcheon, 1991). In this case, a pilot
feels pressure to make a medical evacuation flight
in a Cessna 210 with inoperative radios, in ques-
tionable weather, and with night approaching. After
arriving for the passengers, he finds that in addi-
tion to the child and nurse that he had expected,
there is also a mental patient to transport, along
with a relative of the patient and other cargo,
causing the plane to be overloaded. Despite the
child’s condition, because of the numerous risk
factors, he decides not to take-off.

As students hear or read this story, they are asked
to identify the risk factors facing the pilot includ-
ing the subtle psychological factors such as the
condition of the child or the desire to complete the
job he was sent out to do. When all have listed
these factors individually, the class is opened for
discussion and all are invited to share their in-
sights. The same could be done with any aviation
preflight scenario, including those from individu-
als in the class, either in front of the whole class or
in small groups.

After listing the risk factors, the students are to
organize them into six suggested categories: pilot,
aircraft, environment, operation/mission, organi-
zation/social, and miscellaneous. A form was pro-
vided for students to use as a checklist during this
phase of the training. The first three categories are
those normally used to represent the pilot’s world.
The operation/mission category is added as a place
to put factors regarding personal pressures to com-
plete a mission. The organization/social category
is included as a place to put risk factors that
organizations can add to the pilot’s decision mak-
ing process, including subtle pressures to complete
flights on schedule. Finally, the miscellaneous cat-
egory is included to underscore the emphasis on
personal freedom in the construction of this tool, in
anticipation that some may not wish to identify a
particular risk factor with one of the given categories.
The structure presented is offered as a starting point,
not a required set of categories. What is placed under
any category will be a function of each pilot’s mental
model of how these factors should be classified.

The students should have, by the end of the risk
factor identification section, a list of risk factors
for preflight decision making that includes both


risk factors in general aviation flying, 3) the assign-
ment of risk factors to categories, 4) the establish-
ment of personal minimum guidelines to shield
against the risk factors, and 5) an evaluation of the
established personal minimum guidelines. The pro-
gram was usually completed within 90 minutes.
The program was designed to engage the partici-
pants in the learning process through stimulating
case studies, guided discussion, and individual and
group activities. The program includes easily fol-
lowed directions so that FAA Aviation Safety Pro-
gram Managers (ASPM) can facilitate the program
with only a brief training session. However, be-
cause of the nature of the training and the need for
a commitment to behavior change in the partici-
pants, the program is best conducted by a facilita-
tor who interacts well with the students. A copy of
the program in Microsoft Power Point format is
available from the sponsoring office.

Introduction to preflight decision making. In
the first part of the program, students are given the
basic concepts and motivated to learn and establish
their own personal minimums through an exami-
nation of why preflight decisions are so important
to flight safety. Preflight decisions are defined as:
“Any and all decisions made prior to taxiing the
airplane onto a runway with the intent to take off.”
In aircraft other than airplanes, preflight decisions
are any and all decisions made prior to the first task
to make the aircraft airborne (i.e., gliders—giving
the initiate-launch signal; balloons—giving the
command to launch; helicopters—advancing the
throttle). Under this broad definition, preflight
starts with the first idea to make a flight until the
pilot initiates the first action to take the aircraft
into the air or until that possibility no longer
exists. This definition includes normal preflight
decisions, but emphasizes the pilot’s complete situa-
tion, including all of the assessments and commitments
they make.

Personal minimums are defined as an individu-
alized set of decision criteria (standards) to which
the pilot is committed. Each pilot manifests a
unique and variable set of skills and attitudes.
Notwithstanding the well-recognized difficulties
inherent in self-assessment, and in the absence of
any other outside guidance, the individual pilot is
the best judge of the risks involved in the contem-
plated flight. The psychological theory of cogni-
tive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) suggests that,

when they know they are not being watched, people
are much more likely to follow standards that they
have made themselves and announced (either pub-
licly or in writing) than those imposed upon them
by someone else. Therefore, the emphasis in this
program is placed on getting pilots to commit to
these “personal” minimums.

In contrast with imposed minimums (regula-
tions or SOPs established by the FAA or one’s
organization), personal minimums are self-gener-
ated. We believe that, for the reasons noted above,
in situations where no one is watching, a commit-
ment will be stronger for personal minimums than
it would be for imposed minimums. It is under-
stood that, in most cases, personal minimums are
(and will be) more conservative than the FARs. For
example, the FAA regulations permit VFR with
three miles visibility in any terrain and at night.
There are many reasons why an individual might want
to set his or her own minimums higher than three
miles including: unfamiliarity with the area, scarcity
of navigation points, towers, or hilly terrain. Each
FAR could be considered similarly in applying one’s
own safety considerations to flying situations.

Flying is not unique as an enterprise of trust. In
automobile driving, the actions of the driver are
not observed by the police at every corner. Instead,
the safety of the driver mostly depends upon vol-
untary compliance with the rules of the road and
setting some personal standards depending on the
situation. While some pilot operations take place
under the direct supervision of regulators, manage-
ment, supervisors, or others in authority, most
flights in general aviation remain unsupervised.

In business aviation, commercial flight opera-
tions, and flying clubs, operational limitations or
sets of rules define operational minimums. In these
operations, pilots with less experience must oper-
ate with higher ceilings, higher approach mini-
mums, lighter winds, and lower crosswind
components. In airline and military operations, an
extensive set of SOPs provides tools to assist pilots
in making critical preflight go/no-go decisions.
Flights may be canceled by dispatchers, chief pi-
lots, or supervisory personnel, even before the pilot
has an opportunity to address the go/no-go deci-
sion. Such supervision has proven to be effective in
improving safety in these organizations. At least in
part, this may be the reason for the very good safety
record of these organizations.










Table 1. Approximate attendance at personal
minimums seminars

Columbus, Ohio ...
Baltimore, Maryland
Long Beach, California
Chicago, Illinois ....
Anchorage, Alaska
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
Washington, DC... settee

well received by the general aviation community
and whether they would invite their friends to the
program at a future date. We also wanted to know
if they thought the program would affect their use
of personal minimums in the future.

Although attempts were made to ease the burden
of filling out the evaluation form following each
seminar, it still appeared to be a tedious task for
some participants. Many (about 75%) participants
did not do the evaluation task. However, 187
responses were received from the various field pro-
grams that provided useful data about the program.

The background of the respondents who filled out
the evaluation form covered the spectrum of the
general aviation community. Of the 187 respondents,
165 indicated that they had logged flight time. The
mean flight time among the respondents who had
logged flight time was 2,237 hours; 20 had between
5,000 and 10,000 hours; 5 had between 10,000 and
20,000 hours; and two had over 20,000 hours. Table
2 presents the number of seminar respondents who
returned responses and indicated the pilot certificates
and ratings that they hold.

The analysis of the data consisted of tabulating
the responses to each of the questions that had a
rating form and reviewing all of the comments.

RESULTS

As noted earlier, the primary objective of this
study was to obtain participant reactions to the
training program. Table 3 presents the responses of

Table 2. FAA certificates and ratings of
responding participants

Sample Sample’ Population?
N % %
Student 16 10% 16%
Private 66 40% 41%
Commercial 47 28% 19%
ATP 33 20% 17%
CFI 49 30% 11%
Instrument 36 22% 46%

Note 1: Percentages based upon the 165
respondents who reported having logged flight time.
Note 2: Source FAA Statistical Handbook of Civil
Airmen Statistics, 1993.

the respondents to the four multiple-choice questions
which directly addressed this issue. Since pilots are
unlikely to use any product which they do not
consider to be of direct benefit to them, one simple
index of the acceptability of the training program
is the degree to which the program is perceived to
be helpful. Eighty-five percent of the respondents
indicated that they thought the program would be
extremely helpful or helpful. An additional 13%
were neutral on that issue, and only 2% did not
think that using personal minimums would be
helpful.

The respondents’ expressed intent to use per-
sonal minimums during their pre-flight decision
making was addressed by the second multiple-
choice question. Ninety-seven percent of the re-
spondents indicated they definitely will or may use
personal minimums in the future. In addition,
91% of the respondents indicated they would
recommend this seminar to other pilots, and 85% of
the respondents believed that the program would be
positively received by other general aviation pilots.

Three multiple-choice questions were dedicated
to obtaining an assessment of the clarity of the
training materials and presentation. However, be-
cause the directions for these questions did not
clearly specify the training materials as being un-
der evaluation, the respondents may have inter-
preted these questions as assessing their own
understanding of the training concepts. The results,


shown in Table 4, for these questions, then, are
potentially confounded by two related, but dis-
tinct factors: first, the clarity of the materials
related to the three core concepts; and, second, the
respondents’ perceived understanding of the con-
cepts. Since the respondents’ understanding of the
concepts is probably (but not necessarily) attribut-
able to some degree to the clarity of the presenta-
tion, the results may be interpreted as a general,
but suspect, indication of the clarity of the mate-
rials and presentation. In this case the written
responses to the open questions may be a better
indicator of material and presentation quality.

Two questions on the evaluation form assessed the
respondents’ preferences for type of learning experi-
ence and presentation media. The small-groups cat-
egory was the modal choice (49%) for type of learning
experience, while video and computer aided instruc-
tion were equally preferred as the learning medium
(Tables 5 and 6). In Tables 5 through 8 the entry for
each of the listed alternatives is the number of times
that item was chosen as the most important (rank
order = 1). When asked to rank the key factors (shown
in Table 7) to successful implementation of this
training program, 33% of the respondents ranked
applicability as the most important factor, followed

Table 4. Respondents’ understanding of training

materials

Q5a. Please indicate your level of understanding of :

Personal Minimums.

Easily Understood
Somewhat Understood
Unsure

Somewhat Confusing
Very Confusing

N %
170 93
12 7
1 0

0 0

0 0

Q5b. Please indicate your level of understanding of:

Risk Factors

Easily Understood
Somewhat Understood
Unsure

Somewhat Confusing
Very Confusing

N %
158 86
22 12
3 2

0 0

0 0

Q5c. Please indicate your level of understanding of:

Developing Guidelines.

Easily Understood
Somewhat Understood
Unsure

Somewhat Confusing
Very Confusing

N %
119 66
45 25
11 6
5 3

0 0



Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No.

DOT/FAA/AM-98/6

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitie
An Evaluation of Pilot Acceptance of the Personal Minimums Training

Program for Risk Management

5. Report Date

February 1998

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)
Jensen, R.S., Guilkey, J-E.,' and Hunter, D.R.’

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

"The Ohio State University *Office of Aviation Medicine

Columbus, Ohio 43210

Federal Aviation Administration

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

Washington, DC 20591 DTFAO1-92-10204

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address
Office of Aviation Medicine

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Federal Aviation Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code’

800 Independence Ave., $.W.
Washington, DC 20591

15. Supplemental Notes
This research was performed under Task AM-A-94-189.

16. Abstract

A new general aviation training program entitled, “Personal Minimums for Aviator Risk Management in
Pre-Take-off Decisions” was field tested in five diverse geographic locations around the USA (Columbus,
OH; Long Beach, CA; Anchorage, AL; Baltimore, MD/Washington, DC; and Chicago, IL) to determine
its acceptability to pilot audiences and to obtain feedback for further development of the intervention. In
each case, following the presentation, participants were asked to evaluate the course and its acceptability
to the general aviation community. Analysis of these evaluations revealed that respondents viewed the
training program as helpful and intended to use personal minimums as part of their pre-flight decision
making in the future. Respondent comments and feedback from local FAA personnel at each of the field
sites resulted in progressive modifications to the training format and presentation to improve its
acceptance and utility throughout the course of the field test. It is recommended that development proceed
with video and computer-based versions of this training program and that studies of the training impact be
conducted, possibly in concert with the dissemination of the program throughout the FAA safety seminar
program.

17. Key Words
Aeronautical decision-making, Pilots, Pilot training,
Decision aids, Judgment, Decision making

18. Distribution Statement

Document is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages
Unclassified 22

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized



7. Please rank order the type of learning experience that best suits you. —— Lecture
(1=best; 4=worst) _— Small Groups
__. Guided Discussion
Other (specify

8. Please rank order the type of learning medium that best suits you. _ Overheads
(1=best; 5=worst) __ Slides
_—. Video
_—— Computer Aided
Instruction
—— Other (specify

9. Please rank order what you believe to be the key factors to successful _— Applicability
implementation of this program (1=best; 5=worst). —— Realism
___ Accuracy
—— Meaningfulness
_— Other
(specify

_)

10. What do you see as the most important component of this seminar?

11. What did you like best about the seminar?

12. What did you dislike about the seminar?

13. As you now know, true aviation stories about hazards that have been encountered are important to this
program. Can you offer a story from your flying experience, that other pilots should know about to
increase their ability to make safe decisions?

14. This program has been designed to provide general aviation pilots with a structured method to develop
their own personal minimums. Will such a program be helpful in assuring your own personal safety? If
yes, how will it help you? If no, why not?

A4


NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The United States Government
assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.


those seen in the videos and those each student has
observed in their own. These risk factors are orga-
nized into categories including those less frequently
used, such as the mission and sociological pressures.

Personal Minimum Guidelines. Personal mini-
mum guidelines are simple acronyms, rules of
thumb, sayings, if-then statements, forms, or
memory aids representing what the pilot intends to
do about the risk factors developed in the previous
exercise. The development of these guidelines is
more personal than the risk factor identification
and should be done individually with direction
from the facilitator and handout materials. In this
activity, pilots begin to write their personal mini-
mum guidelines, and will organize them into an
easy-to-use checklist format. Some examples are
offered to assist in getting started.

The same checklist form on which the pilots
have written their risk factors is used to write their
personal minimum guidelines regarding the risk
factors that have been listed by categories. Pilots
are encouraged to consider changes to the checklist
that may better match their own ways of organizing
the guidelines.

The personal minimum guidelines are the most
important aspect of the program. Pilots are asked
to write as many as they can think of for each
category. They are encouraged to take the checklist
home and add more guidelines as they come to
mind. Some of these will be the result of talking
with other pilots, while others will be the result of
one’s own experience. Changes to the guidelines
can be expected as pilots become more experienced
and as they lose recency of flying experience. It is
suggested that changes to take greater risks should
be made only after receiving formal training or
currency. Changes to be more conservative should
be considered during long periods of no flying.

In this section of the seminar, pilots are asked to
share with each other the guidelines that they have
established. This exercise usually results in a lively
sharing session among the pilots. In this sharing,
much of the real learning takes place. The facilita-
tor only encourages the pilots to share and takes a
minor role except to make a summary of some of
the guidelines from time to time and, especially, at
the end. Pilots are then encouraged to sign the
checklist form indicating that on this day, they
committed themselves to the personal minimums
on their own checklist. This exercise can be highly

rewarding because it offers opportunities for ver-
bal expression and public commitment to safety.
However, the instructor/facilitator must be very
sensitive to students who may not wish to share
their ideas; some might consider them too personal
to share.

After completing this section, participants should
have a clear understanding of personal minimums
and a set to which each has committed to follow. A
side benefit of the exercise is that each will have
reviewed the FAR requirements and thus will have
a greater knowledge to take away from the seminar.
From a teaching perspective, one can hardly do
better than to learn rules by determining how they
will be applied to one’s own decisions.

Checklist Evaluation. The final part of the pro-
gram is a review and evaluation of items included
in each person’s personal minimums checklist.
Each participant should perform a self-evaluation
of his or her personal checklist in the following
way:

V_ Check for missing, unclear, and duplicate items.

V Consider the following general questions:

—Are the personal minimums flexible?

—Do they cover the range of intended flying

activities?

—Do they address flying currency questions?

—Do they cover the range of equipment and

aircraft routinely used?

Be sure they are written so that they will be

understood at a later date.

V They should include a general statement about
how the pilot will approach “non-routine” ac-
tivities not covered by their set of minimums.

a

To avoid the possibility of embarrassment, the
facilitator will offer a completed sample personal
minimums checklist for students to discuss but not
to use. Personal minimums are to be personal
which means that they need to be determined by
the person using them and not by the facilitator.
Such samples of risk factors and guidelines should
match the certification levels, flight activities, and
other variables of the students in the class. Indi-
vidual items on the checklist can be modified to
reinforce guidelines from other pilot training ef-
forts or to place particular emphasis on an issue of
local concern to aviation safety.


Table 3. Respondents reactions to training
program

Q1. To what degree will this program be helpful to you?

N %
Extremely Helpful 33 18
Helpful 125 67
Neutral 24 13
Not Helpful 4 2

Q2. Will you use Personal Minimums to assist in your
pre-take-off decisions in the future?

N %
Definitely 148 82
Maybe 27 15
Unsure 2 1
No 4 2

Q3. Would you recommend this seminar to other aviators?

N %
Yes 168 91
No 16 9

Q4. How do you think this program will be received by
general aviation pilots?

N %
Very Positive 40 22
Positive 117 63
Neutral 26 14
Negative 2 1
Very Negative 0 0