Can You Teach Common Sense?

Flying Safety, June, 2001 by Kurt J. Saladana

When reviewing aircraft mishaps, we at the Safety Center are constantly amazed by the actions of the people involved. Almost without exception, somebody in the sequence of events did something so illogical or made a mistake so basic that it's hard to believe. Since the purpose of a mishap investigation is to determine why an accident occurred and then propose methods to prevent the same mistakes from happening again, it falls upon the mishap investigators to come up with appropriate recommendations.

In cases where a mishap occurred because somebody in the sequence of events didn't do his (or her) job, or did something illogical, an investigator's first impulse may be to include a "do your job" or "use common sense" recommendation. Since the Air Force already expects its people to do their jobs and use common sense, recommendations like that are "unacceptable" and never proposed. However, sometimes people didn't "do their job" because training, training publications or directives were inappropriate or incomplete. If that's the case, then mishap investigators will recommend changing training or the associated publications and directives.

When a failure to use common sense is identified, there isn't much anyone can do because, as the cliche goes, "You can't teach common sense." This might be true, but you can present people with examples of the use of common sense and hope that something "clicks" in their brain. At the very least, you can hope they won't repeat someone else's bad decision. The following is a test, using examples of common sense decisions taken from aviation mishaps worldwide. There are undoubtedly better answers for some of the choices available, so pick the one that best demonstrates use of "common sense."

1. You must abort for a mechanical problem during take-off roll. According to the Dash-1, based on your aircraft weight and the speed your aircraft attained, you'll almost certainly end up with hot brakes. Do you:

a. Taxi off the runway and conduct normal post-landing checks?

b. Troubleshoot the mechanical problem that caused the abort while taxiing back for another take-off attempt?

c. Tell the tower that you may have hot brakes and proceed directly to the hot brake area?

2. During a routine peacetime training mission in the CONUS, your wingman has an engine failure and ejects. While performing SARCAP, do you:

a. Fly as low and as slow as possible over his PLF (Parachute Landing Fall) location to ensure he's okay?

b. Stay on scene, even though another aircraft with more fuel is overhead?

c. Recognize that you've just been involved in a mishap, mark the position and hand off SARCAP duties to the first capable aircraft and crew that arrives on scene?

3. Your single engine fails. You're below the minimum airstart altitude, below the minimum recommended ejection altitude and there's no suitable landing area within gliding distance. Do you:

a. Attempt multiple engine restarts?

b. Delay ejection until you get ground rush from the three-foot high corn in the field around you?

c. Zoom, point the aircraft toward an uninhabited area and eject?

4. During takeoff and climb-out, your fly-by-wire aircraft is struck by lightning. You saw the flash, felt the strike and are sure that you were hit, but all aircraft systems appear to function normally. Do you:

a. Continue the flight because the aircraft seems okay, the mission took a lot of planning and this flight will be your only one for several weeks?

b. Immediately declare an emergency, perform a teardrop and land opposite direction on the take-off runway?

c. Inform ATC and the SOF that you were likely struck by lightning, then request clearance for approach and landing with vectors around any detected weather?

5. Your single-engine, ejection seat-equipped aircraft has a recent history of frequent compressor stalls. On climb-out, you hear a loud bang that sounds like a compressor stall. Do you:

a. Immediately go into the compressor stall critical action procedure while entering a turn to dumbbell back and land opposite-direction on the active runway?

b. Eject, because you're below both the minimum airstart altitude and recommended ejection altitude?

c. Assess engine instruments and available thrust first, because that loud bang may have been something besides a compressor stall?

6. You've been flying nighttime missions for a few days and know you're fatigued. During yet another "O'dark-thirty" mission, you have to fly an approach into an aerodrome serviced by an ILS on the active runway. You're on an IFR clearance, the weather is VFR and you have the runway in sight from thirty miles away. You decide to save time. Do you:

a. Cancel and proceed VFR-direct to a point on the extended centerline of the active runway while descending on a visual glideslope?

b. Ask to shoot a VFR approach to the opposite runway because it's closer and will save even more time?

c. Request a visual approach and proceed directly to a point on the extended centerline of the active runway that lets you maintain the ILS on course and glideslope?