> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.planeconnection.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# FRAT Methodology
> How the Flight Risk Assessment Tool works: risk factors, scoring methodology, go/no-go decision support, and regulatory basis for pre-flight risk assessment.
The Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) is a structured method for
evaluating the aggregate risk of a specific flight before departure.
Rather than relying solely on individual judgment, the FRAT provides
a repeatable, documented process that considers multiple risk factors
and produces a risk score that supports the go/no-go decision.
The FRAT is recommended by FAA Advisory Circular 120-92D (Safety Management Systems for Aviation
Service Providers) as a component of Safety Risk Management. While not explicitly mandated by 14
CFR Part 5, it is considered an industry best practice for Part 135 operations and is required by
many insurance underwriters and industry auditing programs (IS-BAO, Wyvern, ARG/US).
## Why Use a FRAT?
Human judgment is susceptible to cognitive biases that degrade risk
assessment quality. Confirmation bias leads pilots to underweight
factors that contradict their desire to fly. Normalization of deviance
gradually raises tolerance for conditions that were once considered
unacceptable. Social pressure -- from passengers, management, or
self-imposed schedule obligations -- subtly shifts the risk calculus.
The FRAT counters these biases by:
1. **Forcing consideration of all factors.** The checklist format
ensures that no major risk category is overlooked, even when the
assessor is focused on one dominant factor.
2. **Quantifying subjective judgment.** Assigning numeric scores to
risk factors makes the aggregate risk visible and comparable.
3. **Establishing objective thresholds.** Pre-defined score ranges
map to required actions, removing the subjectivity from the
go/no-go decision.
4. **Creating a documented record.** Each completed FRAT is a record
of the risk assessment at the time of the decision, supporting
both operational learning and regulatory compliance.
## Risk Factor Categories
The PlaneConnection FRAT evaluates risk across six categories, each
containing multiple individual factors.
### Crew Factors
| Factor | Scoring Basis |
| ----------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
| PIC experience on type | Total hours and recent hours in the specific aircraft type. |
| PIC experience at destination | Familiarity with the destination airport. |
| Crew rest quality | Hours of sleep in the last 24 hours and last rest period. |
| Fatigue risk (K-score) | Computed fatigue score from the FRMS module. |
| Crew pairing experience | Whether the crew has flown together recently. |
| Training currency | Recency of relevant training events. |
### Environmental Factors
| Factor | Scoring Basis |
| ---------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| Ceiling and visibility | Current and forecast weather at departure and destination. |
| Crosswind component | Wind relative to the landing runway. |
| Turbulence and icing | Forecast for the route of flight. |
| Runway condition | Surface contamination (wet, snow, ice). |
| Night operations | Departure or arrival during nighttime. |
| Terrain and obstacles | Route terrain and destination approach environment. |
### Aircraft Factors
| Factor | Scoring Basis |
| -------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |
| MEL/CDL deferrals | Number and significance of active deferrals. |
| Maintenance status | Proximity to scheduled maintenance events. |
| Aircraft performance | Weight and balance, runway performance margins. |
| Predictive alerts | Active alerts from the predictive maintenance system. |
### Operational Factors
| Factor | Scoring Basis |
| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
| Time pressure | Departure time flexibility. |
| Passenger requirements | VIP passengers, special needs, or schedule sensitivity. |
| Leg count | Number of legs in the duty period. |
| Duty period length | Planned duty time relative to limits. |
### Airport Factors
| Factor | Scoring Basis |
| ---------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |
| Approach type | Precision, non-precision, or visual approach. |
| Runway length | Available runway relative to aircraft requirements. |
| Airport services | Availability of emergency services, de-icing, fuel. |
| NOTAMs | Active NOTAMs affecting the departure or destination. |
### Organizational Factors
| Factor | Scoring Basis |
| -------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- |
| Unfamiliar operation | New route, new customer, or operational change. |
| Recent safety events | Relevant incidents or hazards at the airports or on type. |
| Management of change | Whether a change management review is required. |
## Scoring Methodology
Each risk factor is scored on a 1--5 scale:
| Score | Meaning |
| ----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | No additional risk. Normal conditions. |
| 2 | Slightly elevated risk. Standard procedures adequate. |
| 3 | Moderate risk. Enhanced awareness or additional briefing needed. |
| 4 | High risk. Specific mitigations required before proceeding. |
| 5 | Extreme risk. Strong justification needed to proceed. |
### Aggregate Score Calculation
The aggregate FRAT score is the weighted sum of all individual factor
scores. Weights are fully configurable per organization to reflect
your operation's specific risk profile.
### Decision Thresholds
PlaneConnection provides five risk zones — from **Low** (proceed
normally) through **Critical** (do not dispatch). Each zone maps to
escalating review and mitigation requirements. Thresholds are
configurable in your workspace settings to align with your
organization's risk appetite and operational procedures.
FRAT thresholds are decision support, not automatic dispatch decisions. The PIC retains final
authority to refuse a flight under 14 CFR 91.3 and 14 CFR 135.71 regardless of the FRAT score. A
low FRAT score does not override the PIC's judgment that conditions are unsafe.
## FRAT Completion Workflow
The FRAT is completed as part of the pre-flight process and is linked
to the trip record.
1. **Auto-population** -- PlaneConnection pre-fills known factors from
operational data: weather from METAR/TAF, crew fatigue from FRMS,
MEL deferrals from maintenance records, and airport data from the
navigation database.
2. **Crew assessment** -- the PIC reviews pre-filled values, adjusts
any that do not reflect actual conditions, and scores subjective
factors.
3. **Score calculation** -- the system calculates the aggregate score
and displays the risk zone.
4. **Mitigation documentation** -- if the score requires mitigations,
the PIC documents what actions are being taken to reduce risk.
5. **Approval (if required)** -- elevated scores route to the
appropriate authority for review and approval.
6. **Record** -- the completed FRAT is attached to the trip binder
and retained as part of the operational record.
## Connecting FRAT to SMS
The FRAT is both a flight-level risk tool and a source of Safety
Assurance data:
* **SPI tracking** -- average FRAT scores, distribution by risk zone,
and percentage of flights requiring mitigation are tracked as Safety
Performance Indicators.
* **Trend analysis** -- recurring high scores on specific factors
indicate systemic issues (e.g., consistently high fatigue scores
may indicate a scheduling problem).
* **Safety reports** -- if a FRAT identifies a novel hazard, the PIC
can create a safety report directly from the FRAT form.
* **Management review** -- FRAT analytics are included in the
Executive Dashboard and management review materials.
## Related
Step-by-step guide to completing a FRAT before departure.
FRMS methodology, K-score calculation, and Part 117 compliance.
The SRM process and risk matrix that the FRAT feeds into.
View FRAT analytics as part of safety performance oversight.