STAFF SGT. DUSTIN AMMONS
10th Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division,
Fort Drum, New York

Aircrews commonly use personally procured equipment — such as kneeboards, tablets, flashlights and headsets — to enhance operational effectiveness. This article explores the safety implications of personally procured equipment in aviation and highlights best practices to minimize associated risks. Its primary purpose is to help aircrews and leadership understand the safety risks associated with personally procured gear, offering practical guidance for its selection, inspection and approval. By focusing on risk reduction, units can foster a stronger culture of safety and accountability.

While personally procured equipment often bridges critical capability gaps, unvetted gear can introduce significant hazards. According to the U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center, a 2022 Army Readiness Assessment found that over 30 percent of Class C aviation mishaps involved distractions or malfunctions related to personally owned gear. Common issues included unsecured tablets becoming projectiles, low-quality headsets causing hearing fatigue and noncompliant mounts obstructing flight controls. Each incident posed significant flight safety risks that proper oversight could have prevented.

Incompatibility remains a primary hazard. Items not built to military or aircraft-specific standards may fail under extreme pressure, temperature or vibration. Improper installation or usage compounds this risk. For example, some pilots have utilized tablet mounts that inadvertently interfered with collective or cyclic movements during critical phases of flight. Such oversights typically stem from a lack of formal inspection or coordination with safety officers and maintenance personnel.

Lessons learned from these hazards underscore the need for command-approved review processes. Units implementing standardized checklists to evaluate personally procured equipment — assessing factors like battery type, weight and attachment methods — report fewer equipment-related incidents. Furthermore, establishing a local personally procured equipment policy aligned with Army Regulation 385-10 and the unit's aircrew training program improves accountability and reduces dangerous variation across crews.

To manage these risks effectively, individual aircrew members must take personal responsibility for evaluating their gear. Leaders should encourage the reporting of personally procured equipment-related issues through the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) to track trends and share best practices across units. Additionally, integrating personally procured equipment checks into pre-mission inspections reinforces safety discipline at the tactical level.

It’s important to note that most personally procured equipment-involved incidents are entirely preventable. They rarely result from malice or blatant negligence, but rather from the complacent assumption that commercial off-the-shelf equipment “should be fine.” This highlights the critical need for safety officers and standardization pilots to regularly brief crews on authorized gear and proactive risk mitigation strategies.

Ultimately, personally procured equipment is a valuable asset in the cockpit — but only when integrated safely and thoughtfully. Commanders and crews must collaborate to ensure all gear supports, rather than compromises, mission success. By recognizing potential hazards and rigorously applying risk management principles, units can make informed choices that protect both personnel and aircraft.