Editorial: Bad is Good?
By Ed Downs
To be sure, editorial comment should have a purpose other than promoting just the opinions or ego of the writer. This writer would like to think that In Flight USA editorial views would inform and be of benefit to at least a large part of our readership. Having set this lofty goal, subject matter becomes important. Fortunately, in this fast-moving world of aerospace, recreational flying, science, and the ever-changing world of Federal regulations, topics are typically easy to find. At least, that is normally the case.
This writer follows PR, news, recent events, and throws in a bit of personal experience to try to be informative and topical; all good intentions, but sometimes hard to achieve. At this time in our country’s history, it seems like our entire news and information world, including virtually every form of social media, is focused on the claptrap we politely refer to as the “political arena.” And with that, this writer comes to the title of this month’s topic… When is bad, good?
For starters, bad is good in the case of written exams. As a frequent instructor of various aeronautical skills, including subjects pertaining to the FAA Knowledge Test (the official name of “the written”), two bad answers do equal a good answer. As advised many times, eliminate the two wrong answers and the one remaining must be right, whether you know it or not. But aside from that example, bad is just bad. That is until this writer had the TV news on in the background while working late one night. The news reporter (network talking head) was interviewing a highly placed person in one of our illustrious political parties with regard to the mudslinging and allegations of criminal activities being transmitted into the universe. Yes, I do mean the universe, remembering that microwave transmissions never stop.
Someday, an alien species in a faraway solar system will be listening in on the American politics of 2016 and decide that they do not have to destroy the Earth, we are doing a fine job on our own, sorry, I drift. Back to bad being good. The political talking head in this interview, when pushed hard about the charges of “criminal behavior,” rather glibly replied that there is much apparent criminal behavior inside the beltway, but that is just the way politics runs in Washington DC, and it is really quite normal, with nothing to be concerned about. Seriously, that was the answer to “criminal behavior.” While still trying to suck that concept from the Big Gulp of political slop without having the straw collapse, this writer was struck by the thought that I had heard this concept of “bad being good” before but in an aviation context. I just couldn’t pull the connection together.
The following weekend, this writer was teaching a Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic (FIRC), with serious discussions involving many safety issues. The discussions turned to situations in which problems may be identified (be they flying skills, aircraft systems, or operating procedures) but are so frequent that they are accepted as being okay, or normal.
One of the attendees mentioned a great article written by Charlie Precourt, which appeared in the July issue of EAA’s “Sport Aviation” magazine. The article, titled “Normalization of Deviance,” was immediately a familiar term to this writer, coming from NASA. That was the term this writer was trying to remember. Given our politically driven entry into this subject, the term is very easy to apply. Ask the average person on the street about politicians and many potentially colorful and derogatory expressions will immediately emerge, often followed with a long sigh and words that go something like; “but that is just the way it is in politics.” In other words, we accept terrible behavior, questionable ethics, dishonesty, and bold-faced lies as simply “being normal” with politicians, even though such behavior is thought of as very unacceptable and even deviant, when encountered in our day-to-day interaction with real people. You see, “normalization of deviation.”
NASA’s development of this term was the result of our two tragic Space Shuttle losses. While the losses of Challenger and Columbia have been explained technically, it was not technical issues that initiated these events. It was the existence of a management culture that accepted deviance from highly developed standards, on a regular basis, that made dangerous situations “normal.” While the “normalization of deviation” is not a term we often hear in the GA world, we live with it on almost every flight. Those flying airplanes built after the mid 1970s will notice that the documentation carried onboard the airplane, usually in the POH or similar operating manual, will have a Minimum Equipment List (MEL), which allows components in the plane that you need to fly safety to be broken, just as long as some defined back-up is in place. That back up can be another aircraft system or procedural in nature.
The MEL on an airliner may have hundreds of items on it, many of which can be inoperative, requiring special considerations, limitations, or back-up protocols. It is probably fair to say, that virtually no airliner departs the gate with everything working just as it came out of the factory. The philosophy is that “you really do need this stuff, but with sufficient back-up considerations, we can lower the safety margin a bit and still be okay.” We have just normalized a deviation, and in most cases, increased workload on the crew. What about your flying? Be it weather, fuel availability, a maintenance issue, a forgotten chart, failure to update an iPad, or one of many other issues of flight, you will face, or probably have faced, such situations. How do you handle it? Do you say, “Well, I will just keep that in mind, and it will be okay?” If so, you have just normalized a deviation.
We all know that a good aviator approaches every flight with the knowledge that flying is inherently “risky.” But our training, currency, intelligence, and just good common sense typically tell us to approach that risk head on, like checking weather, a good pre-flight, file a flight plan and so on. How do we respond when something crops up, maybe like a mag drop that is just a tad higher than it was in the past? “What the heck,” you say “it has been that way for some time with no problem… maybe it is just fowled a bit… I can clear it in flight… I will just watch it and take a closer look at annual time.” Sound familiar? You have just normalized a deviance… and it will bite you. Perhaps that mag will hang on, but the time and attention you give it might turn out to be brainpower you need somewhere else, like recognizing you have hit Decision Height while making an ILS approach in lousy weather on a dark night.
Descending below DH results in impact short of the runway, followed by an NTSB investigation. The NTSB will probably conclude that the pilot simply flew the procedure incorrectly. They may never figure out the real problem was a mag that never failed, but had you sufficiently distracted to miss DH, and important priorities of flight were missed. The culture of normalizing deviance, perhaps established without you even realizing it, was the real culprit. Complicated human factors stuff, right?
It is interesting to this FIRC instructor that NASA data regarding “normalization of deviation” are not specifically covered in our Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) part of the approved FIRC curriculums. To be sure, many elements of what ADM encompasses reflect the excellent studies done by NASA, but the term “normalization of deviation,” is not one of them. ADM hits all around it but does not get to the point that most pilots, on a regular basis, deviate from safety procedures because, “it has always been okay in the past.” Perhaps it is time that readers include it in your vocabulary. It is okay to recognize that something may be less than perfect and that operation of the mission can still be carried out if done carefully. The trick is, do NOT consider such operation as NORMAL. Remember, a safe flight does not just happen; it is caused by the PIC… you.
For more information on human factors subjects, look for the great FAA publication “Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge.” An entire chapter is dedicated to ADM. Virtually all aviation supply stores and online bookstores sell it, about $20, a great read. Also, go to www.faasafety.gov and log on to the FAA Safety website. This address has an incredible amount of educational information, including special subject courses and the FAA WINGS program. I think it was Orville Wright who said something like, “if you ain’t leaning, you’re getting stupid…” Okay, maybe that is a stretch, but he would have said it, if asked.
