Flight Risk Assessment Tool: A Sample FRAT You Can Adapt

A flight risk assessment tool (FRAT) is a short scored questionnaire a crew fills out while planning each flight. Each question names a known hazard (a new crew pairing, a wet runway, a night arrival, a client pushing for an on-time departure) and gives it points; the total says whether the flight goes as planned, needs mitigation, needs someone above the crew to approve it, or doesn’t go. The FAA describes it as a way to “determine which flights have more risk and allow operators to intervene and reduce risk when possible” (FAA InFO 07015).

What is a FRAT in aviation?

A FRAT turns the go/no-go conversation into something written down before the pressure of departure. The FAA Safety Team says writing it down “helps set clear risk boundaries away from the pressures of an imminent flight,” and the mind “has a tendency to isolate individual risks, which can lead to an underestimation of their collective impact” (FAA Safety Team FRAT page).

It doesn’t make the decision: the same page says a FRAT “is not designed to make the go/no-go decision for you.” And it’s yours to change: InFO 07015 says operators may use the FAA’s example “as published or to modify it as needed.”

What should a flight risk assessment form include?

Most FRATs group questions the way pilots already think about risk: the pilot, the aircraft, the environment and external pressure (the PAVE checklist in the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook, FAA-H-8083-2A). The sample below uses four scored categories plus a short set of stop questions that sit outside the score.

Photo: Senior Airman Trevor Calvert, U.S. Air Force (public domain)

Two choices make it more useful than yes/no boxes. Answers are graded, so “PIC time in type” shows how much of a hazard is present. And stop questions are not points, because a clean score everywhere else shouldn’t be able to hide them.

The full sample is also available as a spreadsheet: download the sample FRAT (CSV). It has one row per answer option (category, question, answer option, points).

This is an example to adapt, not an FAA form. The point values are a starting point built on the same hazards the FAA’s own example covers; your operation, aircraft and history should change them.

Stop questions (answer before scoring)

A “stop” means the trip can’t go as planned until the problem is fixed, not necessarily that it’s canceled. For the rules behind the first two questions, see our guides to inoperative equipment under 91.213 and Part 135 duty time limits.

Pilot and crew

These duty and rest bands measure fatigue, not legality, which belongs in the stop questions.

Aircraft

Environment

Operation and external pressure

Most FRATs underweight external pressure, because nobody wants to write down that the boss is in a hurry. Ask about the situation, not the person.

How do you set FRAT score thresholds?

InFO 07015 says the operator “will need to create numerical thresholds that trigger additional levels of scrutiny prior to a go/no-go decision,” and gives a blunt test for whether they’re right: “If every flight is within the acceptable range under any condition, it is likely that the thresholds have not been set correctly.”

Photo: NOAA (public domain)

For the sample above (the highest possible score is 96), these four bands are our suggested starting point, not FAA figures:

A few rules make the bands work:

• Name the approver in advance, and who covers when that person is flying. In the FAA’s worked example, the chief pilot reviews high scores and accepts, rejects or mitigates the risk.
• Decide whether approval follows the raw or the mitigated score. Either works. Write it down and record both numbers every time.
• The approver isn’t on the crew. For small operations (its example is a pilot who is also the chief pilot and owner), InFO 07015 says to “consider strategies for appropriate consideration of elevated risk that best fit their operation.” One option is a call to a second pilot you trust.
• Mitigation has to change an answer. “We’ll be careful” changes nothing. A more current first officer or a daylight arrival does.

A worked example (fictional)

A two-pilot midsize jet has an evening trip to an airport new to the crew: PIC 300 hours in type, SIC 180, first trip together, a 13-hour duty day with three legs, lateral guidance only, IMC well above minimums, a wet runway, crosswind about 60% of demonstrated, a night arrival and a firm meeting time.

At 26 the trip is in the named-approver band. The chief pilot assigns an SIC with more than 250 hours in type who has flown with this captain (minus 4), and moves the departure up so the arrival is in daylight (minus 3). The mitigated score is 19. The chief pilot approves by name, and the FRAT records both scores and both changes.

How do you build a FRAT from scratch?

1. List your hazards from your own events and reports, the FAA’s example in InFO 07015, and NTSB reports for your aircraft types. Ask your line pilots what makes them uneasy.
2. Give each question graded answers wherever a middle answer matters.
3. Weight by likelihood and severity. InFO 07015 says risk includes “probability, severity, and weighted value.”
4. Pull out the stop questions. Anything that ends the discussion by itself doesn’t belong in the sum.
5. Back-score 30 to 50 past trips using what you knew at planning time, and see where scores cluster.
6. Set thresholds from that spread, so routine trips stay below the first one and the trips your pilots remember as demanding land above it.
7. Trial it for a month, fix the questions that confused people, then make it policy.

Keep it short. A FRAT that takes ten minutes gets filled out after the decision is made. Twenty to thirty questions, most answered from the trip sheet, is a workable size.

How do you tune a FRAT over time?

A FRAT is never finished. Review it on a schedule (quarterly is common) and after any event or near miss. Look at:

• Score spread. If no trip has reached the approver band in six months, the values are too gentle or crews are underscoring. If half your trips need approval, approval becomes a rubber stamp.
• Questions that never vary. One that always scores zero is either irrelevant (delete it) or badly banded. One that always scores the same nonzero value is noise.
• Events on low-scoring trips. Find the hazard the FRAT missed and add it.
• Recorded mitigations. They show which controls your operation relies on.

Version the form, so a change in scores can be told apart from a change in the form. If you’re under Part 5, a reasonable reading of § 5.51 (below) is that a significant change to your FRAT is a revision to an existing system and gets its own safety risk management.

What mistakes make a FRAT useless?

Checkbox culture. The FRAT is completed at the airplane after the fuel order and the passenger call, so it records a decision instead of informing one. Complete it at planning time and re-score when the trip changes.

Thresholds nobody hits. Every flight scores green, so the FRAT never asks anyone to do anything; InFO 07015 warns about this directly. The reverse fails too: when every other trip needs approval, the approver signs without reading.

Sums that hide one big hazard. A contaminated short runway can be the whole story. Use stop questions, and consider a rule that any answer at the top of its scale triggers a conversation.

Yes/no questions only. “Low time in type” means something different at 20 hours than at 180.

The crew approves its own high score. That isn’t a second look.

Scores used against pilots. If a high score brings questions about the pilot instead of the trip, scores will drift down. Bias already pulls that way, as the FAASTeam page notes.

No record of mitigations. Without them, you can’t tell whether the FRAT is changing anything.

Where does a FRAT fit in a safety management system?

A FRAT is one tool inside safety risk management. InFO 07015 says “risk assessment tools are only part of an SMS and should not be considered the whole system.”

Part 135 operators: the SMS rule and its timeline

An April 26, 2024 final rule (89 FR 33068) extended 14 CFR Part 5 to Part 135 certificate holders and § 91.147 Letter of Authorization holders (§ 5.1(b) and (c)). Under § 5.9:

• An operator authorized under Part 135 (or holding a § 91.147 Letter of Authorization) before May 28, 2024 must develop and implement an SMS that meets Part 5, and submit a declaration of compliance to the FAA, no later than May 28, 2027.
• An applicant for Part 135 authorization, or one with an application pending on or after May 28, 2024, must develop and implement an SMS that meets Part 5.
• Some requirements don’t apply to an organization with a single pilot who is the only person performing all the functions needed to operate the aircraft safely (§ 5.9(e)).

Part 5 doesn’t mention FRATs by name. It requires safety risk management for new systems, revised systems, the development of operational procedures, and hazards or ineffective controls found through safety assurance (§ 5.51), plus a defined process for risk assessment that “allows for the determination of acceptable safety risk” (§ 5.55).

The FAA’s guidance keeps the two apart. AC 120-92D (May 21, 2024), section 3.4.5.4.1 (repeated in Appendix G), says a FRAT “would be used to determine if conditions are acceptable for a specific flight to commence,” while the § 5.55 risk assessment determines whether residual risk in a process is acceptable, and that “it is important not to confuse the purpose of these two distinctly different tools.” So a FRAT can be one of your risk controls and a source of safety data, but it doesn’t by itself satisfy § 5.55.

Part 91 flight departments: voluntary SMS and IS-BAO

Part 5 doesn’t apply to a Part 91 corporate flight department (only § 91.147 air tour operators). Many build an SMS anyway, often starting with a FRAT because it touches every trip.

The FAA’s SMS Voluntary Program lists the parts eligible for participation. For Part 91, it names Living History Flight Experience operators and Part 91K fractional ownership operations. Departments outside that list can still model their SMS on Part 5 and AC 120-92D, which says other organizations may use it to develop an SMS voluntarily. Another common route is IS-BAO, the International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations from the International Business Aviation Council, a voluntary standard that includes an SMS. If you’re unsure which rules your operation flies under, see Part 91 vs. Part 135 vs. Part 91K.

Running your FRAT in Avion Desk

In Avion Desk, a trip is released only after its checks, the aircraft’s state and a risk assessment pass, and a trip whose risk score is above your threshold needs a named approver.

You write your own risk questions and thresholds, so the questions your crews answer are the ones your operation chose.

See how the release works on the release feature page. See also safety reports. To try it, start a free trial and enter the sample questions above as your own, or ask for a demo.

Frequently asked questions

Is a FRAT required by the FAA?

No rule requires a FRAT by name. The closest is helicopter air ambulance operations: § 135.617 requires each certificate holder conducting them to have an FAA-approved preflight risk analysis, and the pilot in command completes and signs a worksheet before the first leg. Part 135 operators must have an SMS under Part 5 (existing operators by May 28, 2027), and a FRAT is a common tool inside one, but Part 5 asks for safety risk management processes rather than a specific form.

What’s a good FRAT score threshold?

There isn’t a universal number, because it depends on your questions and point values. Back-score 30 to 50 past trips, then set thresholds so routine trips pass and the demanding ones get a second look. If nothing ever crosses your thresholds, they’re set wrong.

Who should approve a high-risk flight?

Someone outside the crew who has the authority to change the trip, such as the chief pilot, director of operations or a designated duty manager. Name that person, and a backup, in your procedures before you need them.

Is the FAA’s sample FRAT good enough to use as is?

InFO 07015 says operators can use its example as published or modify it. Most operators find they need to change point values and add questions specific to their aircraft, airports and missions.

How often should a FRAT be reviewed?

Review it on a fixed schedule, quarterly is common, and after any event or near miss. Look at the score spread, questions that never vary, and events that happened on low-scoring trips.

This article explains the rules in plain language and isn’t legal advice; the regulation text governs.

Copy link