The Krikorian Group

BackgroundBackground.html
AssessmentsAssessments.html
TrainingTraining.html
NTSB DataNTSBdata.html
Not Good!NotGood.html

Example Assessment Report

© 2007, Steve Krikorian



When the assessment is complete, a detailed report, specifically tailored for the company, provides a  concise, meaningful estimate of the effectiveness of their flight safety program and how it compares to similar flight departments.   The results of the assessment contribute to a numeric, statistical measure of the likelihood the company’s flying program might suffer a serious aircraft accident or incident.  More importantly, the report provides critical feedback highlighting areas needing attention with suggestions for improvement.


The report begins with the following disclaimer reflecting Krikorian Group policy:



Report structure is usually organized into four sections:







 
Report

Summary  

    Company Profile

    General Assessment Method

    Assessment Rating Results


Analysis of Results

    Business

    Leadership

    Management

    Pilots

    Aircraft

    Support

    Flight Operations Safety Program

Assessment Details by Category

    Business

    Leadership

    Management

    Pilots

    Aircraft

    Support


Appendix A (Terms, Structure, Method)

    Purpose and Goal

    Statistical Assumption

    Organizational Structure and Terms

    Interpreting the Significance of a Score

Back to Safety homepageSafetyMain.html

Aircraft, Element 16, Security:  Previously discussed in Leadership, Element 14, Security: Mission, security of the company aircraft at out-stations can be an issue.  While company aircraft usually do not overnight in remote locations (unattended), several airports serviced by Imaginary Air do not provide suitable ramp security for aircraft or customer cargo contained therein. Last year, the company dispatched aircraft 26 times to overnight at locations lacking patrolled security. On several occasions, customer cargo remained onboard overnight. Company policy requires pilots to lock the aircraft doors, but the threat of tampering in a “post 9-11” environment cannot be dismissed. No problems have been reported to date. 

Suggestion:

1.Determine the locations of greatest risk and plan missions to not overnight assets at those airports.

2.Schedule trips to avoid parking aircraft overnight at airports lacking restricted flightline access and manned security.

3.If necessary, to satisfy customer demands, identify those airports where customer cargo is likely to remain overnight and consider contracting security services, if reasonably available. Cost can, and should, be borne by the customer.  Seek company insurer input.

The assessment method utilizes a “weighted matrix” scoring system culminating in an overall company score of “Normal Risk (1.5 - 2.5), “Elevated Risk” (2.5 - 3.0), or “High Risk” (3.1 - 4.0).  These scores relate to the statistical assumption of the “bell curve” and its standard deviations. 

The report presents findings in easy-to-read tabular, color-coded format along with  cross-referenced explanatory text.  Below are excerpts from a representative report for a fictional company.

---------------------------    Experience and judgement make all the difference  ---------------------------