Accidents involving limited category aircraft over the last few years have prompted me to re-examine my support for the regulatory concept of “informed risk”.  I admit that I was passive about the concept and therefore generally supported its use in the Australian regulatory framework.

In layman’s terms, informed risk is a concept which permits activities on the condition that the participants are informed about the risks involved, can make a judgment about them and can therefore accept or reject the risks.

A good example of where this is used in Australia is Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 262AM.  Click here to see Civil Aviation Regulations and use the index to find CAR 262AM.

In very simple terms, this regulation, states that a passenger who may or may not have provided payment, cannot fly in a limited category aircraft unless that person has been informed that;
• The aircraft design, manufacture and airworthiness are not required to meet any CASA recognized standard
• CASA does not require the aircraft to be operated to the same degree of safety as an aircraft on a commercial passenger flight
• The passenger flies at his or her own risk.

This regulation also requires a placarded warning which states, “Warning – Persons fly in this aircraft at their own risk.  This aircraft has been designed for special operations and is not operated to the same safety standards as a normal commercial passenger flight.”

A basic tenet of risk analysis is that the context is understood and risks and treatments are assessed in consideration of the context.  A prospective passenger who is being informed about aircraft design, manufacture and airworthiness may not understand the underlying technical concepts, the ramifications, and the risks.  If he or she has the courage to ask further questions, there is also the possibility that the pilot will not be able to fully satisfy the passenger’s curiosity.  Similarly, the prospective passenger may only have a superficial understanding of CASA’s safety requirements for these types of aircraft. 

“The passenger flies at his or her own risk.” – This type of statement is in common use in every aspect of our lives; but what are the risks, what is the potential and consequence of undertaking a passenger flight in a limited category aircraft?  I understand,  “Beware of Dog – Enter at own risk.”, because I hear the dog and may even see the dog’s teeth, and because of my life experiences with dogs, I fully understand the risks and consequences. 

Clearly, there are some aviation activities which by their nature are inherently risky and that may be the attraction.  Parachuting may be considered as such an activity.  The thrill is the risk, and it could be inferred that the risks are inherently understood.  Can the same be said of a person who proposes a flight in a limited category aircraft?

Whilst not completely opposed to the concept of informed risk, I think it has significant limitations and aviation regulators need to carefully consider its real safety value and therefore, its application.