GRIM: G-Risk Indicator Management Program

Flying Safety, Nov, 2004 by Sam Galvagno, Thomas Massa

"Viper check," "Two" is the call as two F-16s launch from Luke AFB for some Basic Fighter Maneuver (BFM) training. They check into the airspace, prime real estate with 20 miles visibility, an unlimited ceiling, and a 115-degree barren desert below. After the G-check, "Fight's on" is called, and the two Vipers begin their BFM engagement. Viper 2 accelerates and enters the turn circle. With his mind on a kill and fangs full out, he hits the turn circle and puts a blistering 8.4 Gs on the jet.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Suddenly the aircraft nose dips down, the Gs quickly bleed off, and Bitchin' Betty starts screaming as the ground rushes towards the falling jet. The instructor pilot in the back seat promptly calls "knock it off," recovers the aircraft, declares a physiological incident, and returns to base. The student is peeled out of the cockpit by the flight surgeon and life support team upon landing, and later, during the Head-Up-Display (HUD) tape review, the physiologist points out the cause of the student's G-induced loss of consciousness (G-LOC): The student held his breath and failed to perform a correct anti-G straining maneuver (AGSM). How many times have you heard this before?

The physiological and operational impact of acute exposures to high-G acceleration has been well documented. According to data obtained from the Air Force Safety Center database, from 1982 to 2002, 29 aircraft in the USAF were lost to G-related mishaps with a 79% fatality rate; over 487 G-related physiological incidents occurred throughout this period. Notwithstanding advances in anti-G protection such as the Combined Advanced Technology Enhanced Design G Ensemble (COMBAT EDGE)/Advanced Technology Anti-G Suit (ATAGS) and the standard CSU-13 B/P anti-G ensemble combined with centrifuge-based skill performance and training programs, the incidence of G-related physiological incidents has remained relatively stable over the past two decades.

In an effort to enhance combat capability and safety for student pilots enrolled in the USAF Basic Operational Training Course F-16C/D (B Course) at Luke AFB, Ariz., the G-Risk Indicator Management (GRIM) Program was implemented in April 2000 by two flight surgeons, Drs. William Hallier and Rolland Reynolds, and an aerospace physiologist, Thomas Morrison. The purpose of the GRIM Program is to enhance combat capability and safety by identifying pilots with a propensity for poor G-performance while assisting these aviators in the development of habit patterns and lifestyle decisions that will enhance both G-performance and G-discipline throughout F-16 conversion training and beyond. By assessing the risks and implementing control measures, the GRIM Program serves as an example of how the principles of Operational Risk Management (ORM) can be used for training fighter pilots. The following is an example of how Luke AFB uses the six steps of ORM to manage G-Risk in F-16 student aviators:

1. The G-Hazard

Some student pilots continue to demonstrate G-performance inadequacies before and during F-16 aircraft conversion instruction despite extensive G-tolerance testing and training throughout the fighter pilot pipeline. These problems may become apparent during F-16 training since this aircraft, unlike other high-performance training aircraft such as the T-6, T-37 and AT-38, is capable of initiating and sustaining instantaneous acceleration forces up to 9 Gs.

2. Assessing G-Risk

The potential for G-related risk is identified by three variables: 1) the pilot's physical conditioning at the start of F-16 training, which is evaluated using scores from the Fighter Aircrew Conditioning Test (FACT), 2) performance results of the pilot's F-16 centrifuge qualification training, and 3) AGSM comments provided by instructor pilots during and after Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT), Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF), and after high-G sorties in the F-16.

3. Analyzing G-Risk Control Measures

While in the GRIM Program, risk control options include a mandatory monitored physical conditioning program and AGSM coaching by the flight surgeon and aerospace physiologist. Enrolled students require frequent assessment of the AGSM. This assessment is made with a formal HUD tape review by the student's instructor pilot as well as the aerospace physiologist or flight surgeon after specific high-G sorties throughout the curriculum. For example, a HUD review is required after the student's first F-16 flight (TR-1), first offensive BFM engagement (BFM-1), and first defensive BFM engagement (BFM-5). Physical conditioning and AGSM review comments are added to the student's grade book by the aerospace physiologist upon completion of all required HUD reviews. This review consists of an individual assessment of the student's weekly physical conditioning progress, noting any significant changes in strength or overall conditioning and performance of the AGSM during high-G flying tasks. Changes to a student's exercise regime or execution of the AGSM technique are administered, if deemed necessary.