Contrary to popular belief, good judgment can be taught. Tradition held that good judgment was a natural by-product of experience, and as pilots continued to log accident-free flight hours, a corresponding increase of good judgment was assumed. Building upon the foundation of conventional decision-making, ADM enhances the process to decrease the probability of human error and increase the probability of a safe flight. ADM provides a structured, systematic approach to analyzing changes that occur during a flight and how these changes might affect a flight’s safe outcome. The ADM process addresses all aspects of decision-making in the flight deck and identifies the steps involved in good decision-making. 

Steps for good decision-making are: 

1. Identifying personal attitudes hazardous to safe flight. 

2. Learning behavior modification techniques. 

3. Learning how to recognize and cope with stress. 

4. Developing risk assessment skills. 

5. Using all resources. 

6. Evaluating the effectiveness of one’s ADM skills. 

ADM results in helping to manage risk. When a pilot follows good decision-making practices, the inherent risk in a flight is reduced or even eliminated. The ability to make good decisions is based upon direct or indirect experience and education. 

Consider automobile seat belt use. In just two decades, seat belt use has become the norm, placing those who do not wear seat belts outside the norm, but this group may learn to wear a seat belt by either direct or indirect experience. For example, a driver learns through direct experience about the value of wearing a seat belt when he or she is involved in a car accident that leads to a personal injury. An indirect learning experience occurs when a loved one is injured during a car accident because he or she failed to wear a seat belt. 

While poor decision-making in everyday life does not always lead to tragedy, the margin for error in aviation is narrow. Since ADM enhances management of an aeronautical environment, all pilots should become familiar with and employ ADM. 

## Analytical Decision-Making 

Analytical decision-making is a form of decision-making that takes both time and evaluation of options. A form of this type of decision-making is based upon the acronym “DECIDE.” It provides a six-step process for the pilot to logically make good aeronautical decisions. For example, a pilot who flew from Houston, Texas to Jacksonville, Florida in a Merlin failed to use the decision-making process correctly and to 

his advantage. Noteworthy about this example is how easily pilots are swayed from taking best courses of action when convenient courses are interpreted as being in our best interest. 

D etect a change or hazard. In the case at hand, the pilot was running late after conducting business meetings early in the morning. He and his family departed one hour later than expected. In this case, one would assess the late departure for impact to include the need to amend the arrival time. However, if the pilot is impetuous, these circumstances translate into a hazard. Because this pilot was in a hurry, he did not assess for impact and, as a result, did not amend the arrival time. Key in any decision-making is detecting the situation and its subtleties as a hazard; otherwise, no action is taken by the pilot. It is often the case that the pilot fails to see the evolving hazard. On the other hand, a pilot who does see and understand the hazard, yet makes a decision to ignore it, does not benefit from a decision-making process; the issue is not understanding decision-making, but one of attitude. 

E stimate the need to counter or react to the change. As the pilot progressed to the destination, it became apparent that the destination weather (at Craig Field in Jacksonville) was forecast as below approach minimums (due to fog) at the time of arrival. However, weather at an alternative airport just 40 miles away was visual flight rules (VFR). At this time, the pilot should have assessed several factors to include the probability of making a successful approach and landing at Craig versus using an alternative field. In one case, the approach is certainly challenging, but it is an approach at the intended destination. The other location (unencumbered by weather) is inconvenient to the personnel waiting on the ground, requiring that they drive 40 miles to meet the pilot and his family. 

C hoose a desirable outcome for the flight. Selecting a desirable outcome requires objectivity, and this is when pilots make grave errors. Instead of selecting the course of outcome with consideration to challenges of airmanship, pilots typically select an outcome that is convenient for both themselves and others. And without other onboard or external input, the choice is not only flawed but also reinforced by their own rationale. In this case, the pilot of the Merlin intends to make the approach at Craig despite 100 feet ceilings with ¼ mile visibility. 

I dentify actions that can successfully control the change. In the situation being discussed, the pilot looks at success as meeting several objectives: 

1. Being on time for Thanksgiving dinner 

2. Not inconveniencing his relatives waiting on the ground 

