Using Threat and Error Management Systems to Mitigate Aviation Risks

A master of science graduate in aviation and aerospace management from Purdue University, Tilak S. Ramaprakash works as a contract pilot, aviation auditor, and consultant. He leverages his certifications as an auditor to ensure adherence to international aviation standards for different airlines. One of the areas Tilak Ramaprakash monitors and audits is threat-and-error management (TEM) in flight operations.

TEM utilizes a three-pronged model of threats, errors, and undesired aircraft states. From the airline crew’s perspective, situational management works on the premise that threats and errors represent a significant factor in everyday aviation, thus should be heavily weighted, as they can lead to undesired aircraft states.

In the aviation industry, some threats emanate from external factors beyond the crew’s control and range from extreme weather, complex terrain, such as proximity to mountains and water bodies, and errors by third parties, such as maintenance crews. Each of these variables significantly affects the safety and risk margins of the aircraft’s desired operation.

In some instances, the crew does anticipate threats, either from experience, data analysis, or feedback from other parties. Examples of anticipated threats include poor airport design, either for approach or takeoff, or congestion, which allow for prior planning. However, unexpected threats, such as a component malfunction without warning, require crew engagement through prior experience, training, and drills.

There are threats that fall into neither the anticipated nor the unexpected classification. These are referred to as latent threats, which require safety analysis to solve, and can include airplane design flaws. Regardless of the threat nature, an effective and tested TEM system enables the crew to respond effectively and deploy the necessary countermeasures in the shortest time possible to maintain the desirable aircraft state.