University Study Gets Pilots‘ Risk Assessment All Wrong

Pilot Risk Study

The University of Aberdeen in Scotland recently released the results of a study on how GA pilots rank stress among safety-of-flight factors, but the study does not appear to have been formulated or reviewed by pilots, or anyone else who knows much about flying airplanes. According to the university's website, its Applied Psychology and Human Factors (APHF) group concluded that, "Pilots downplay the impact of stress on flight safety" (that's the headline). Even though "flight safety bodies" have stated that stress can compromise performance, general aviation pilots do not consider stress to be as great a risk to flight safety as "other factors," according to the group.

It's those "other factors" that would have pilots scratching their heads about the research team's judgment in formulating the criteria for the study. With some editorial comments in brackets, here is a summary of the survey methodology from the university's report on the research:

"The team presented 101 pilots [no information on ratings or experience] with a series of 12 take-off scenarios across four categories---compromised performance (pilot stressed, fatigued or ill), environmental hazards (thunderstorm, ice, wind), faulty equipment (power, noise, ASI) [I presume faulty "power" means a faulty engine; I'm not sure what faulty "noise" equipment is; and I suspect the research team equated flying with an inoperative airspeed indicator to be equivalent to driving a car with a broken speedometer], and missing equipment (checklist, sunglasses, seatbelt). Pilots were then asked if they would proceed in each scenario and to explain their reasoning."

Faced with those choices, the pilots understandably (at least to other pilots) explained they were more likely (or less unlikely) to launch when ill, tired, or stressed than they would in: a thunderstorm or ice; with a faulty airspeed indicator or engine; or with their seatbelt missing (or horror of horrors, their sunglasses!). So, in the researchers' view, that means that stress doesn't seem to concern GA pilots.

The team leader wrote: "The pilots' reasoning for their decisions suggests that although they were aware of the risks of flying while ill or tired, the pilots considered flight to be a stress relieving activity, and so they were less likely to cancel a flight based on being under stress. This is despite guidance from aviation regulatory bodies such as the Federal Aviation Authority (sic) indicating that stress can potentially compromise flight performance."

While that's not exactly untrue, maybe the research team should have done some research on flying, first.

Samantha ThomasWriter