Guest blogger Frank Raymond explains how the lost art of the “do over” in youth sports is analogous to non-punitive aviation safety programs.
I’ve been a youth soccer coach for 12 years, beginning when my daughter was four. She’s now a junior in high school.
With the exception of a few years as an assistant coach for my son’s team, I mostly coached my daughter’s teams. That arrangement flip-flopped a couple of years ago, when my daughter joined the high school team.
Now, I coach my son and his team of 14-year-old boys.
As the kids have gotten older, I’ve had to change my approach to the game and to coaching, along with what I’m teaching them.
Last night was a perfect example.
We were scrimmaging amongst the team. Without going into the nuances of the offside rule, I observed that one team challenged that an opposing player was offside. The player argued that, no, he was onside. I waited a few seconds to see if it was going to work itself out, but neither side was willing to bend. The voices started getting louder, and the body language was getting tense.
That’s when I stepped in and told them about the old days, when I played football with the neighborhood kids. When we found ourselves in a similar situation, we called for a “Do Over!” Which meant that we lined back up and ran the play again.
I think we have lost the art of the Do Over.
BRINGING BACK THE DO OVER
People are so intrenched in their positions at work, home or politics that they feel they cannot be seen as weak, giving up or worse—losing.
The beauty of the Do Over is that both sides agree that they don’t know the full truth. They both saw it from different angles and they both believe their view was right. The Do Over says, “I’m pretty sure I’m right, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of the game and team.” The Do Over sucks the negative energy right out of a heated debate.
So, what does this have to do with aviation? We probably have all heard recordings of ATC and pilot communications, where the discussion gets heated because someone did not do what the other one expected. Or an instruction was misunderstood or missed altogether. Instead of having the heated discussion on the radio (or YouTube) waves, however, what if someone called for a Do Over? No one needs to win the argument; what we need is to safely operate the NAS.
I think that programs like ASAP and FDM are forms of the Do-Over.
These non-punitive programs give us the ability to say, “I think I made a mistake, and I want to tell you about it, because I still want to play the game.” (I’m not suggesting that aviation is a game, but it sure can be fun!)
ASAP and FDM aren’t about placing blame. I report because I want to do what is best for my company, my community and/or my industry. I’m not saying you were wrong and I was right.
The FAA is willing to accept the Do Over so we can all benefit from each other’s experiences and improve safety across the system.
The Do Over requires both sides to agree to use it. ASAP and FDM are no different.
All parties to the programs have to agree to the rules, and have to agree that winning the argument is meaningless. It is far more important to learn from the reported event and share that knowledge with others.
Lastly, the great thing about the Do Over is that you get to keep playing the game. No one goes home mad, or worse—with a bloodied lip.
Like the Do Over, when an ASAP report is accepted into the Program and the corrective action is completed, the reporter gets to go fly again.
I encourage you to think about the Do Over and how it can make you and our aviation community better and safer.
Until next time, let’s go play!
About the Author
Prior to his current role at a Part 91 operation in Seattle, Washington, Frank Raymond served at the Director of Safety for the Air Charter Safety Foundation (ACSF). During his time at the ACSF, he supported the Foundation’s third-party Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), conducting training for its member companies, and conducted industry outreach regarding the benefits of ASAP. He also spearheaded the launch of the ACSF’s Flight Data Monitoring program. Raymond also worked for the Seattle-based Vulcan, Inc. for 14 years. While at Vulcan, he launched its flight operational quality assurance (FOQA) program, redeveloped the team’s emergency response plan (ERP) and developed the company’s CARE Team. Raymond is a recipient of the Tony Kern Professionalism in Aviation Award, and has served in numerous industry volunteer capacities.
