The Layers of Safety Framework | Sara Kaiser, Embodied Aerial
Frameworks · Embodied Aerial

The Layers of Safety Framework

A Framework for Safer, More Inclusive Aerial Learning

Students learn most effectively when they are physically protected, psychologically safe, and socially secure within the group.

Sara Kaiser · Embodied Aerial · 2026
The central thesis

Safety in aerial is more than good equipment.

A need far beyond aerial

Psychological safety has become a significant need across workplaces, education, health care, and other industries where people must ask questions, report concerns, acknowledge uncertainty, and learn with others. A major meta-analysis drew from 136 independent samples representing more than 22,000 people and nearly 5,000 groups, demonstrating that psychological safety is a well-established factor in how people work and perform together.1

At the same time, many people have learned that speaking honestly can threaten their belonging, relationships, or status. Research tracking political self-censorship in the United States found that the proportion of people who did not feel free to express their views had tripled since the McCarthy era. In 2020, more than four in ten people reported self-censoring. The researchers identified fear of isolation from friends, family, and neighbors as a likely driver.2

Aerial studios are small social systems within this broader world. They can reproduce the same pressures that teach people to stay quiet, or they can intentionally establish something that may be missing elsewhere: a culture where raising a concern, admitting fear, asking a basic question, or naming a need does not threaten a person’s place in the group.

Physical, psychological, and social safety are distinct but interdependent conditions of effective aerial learning and risk mitigation. Each layer must be deliberately established, consistently maintained, and made perceptible to students, not passively assumed to exist because an instructor has good intentions.

Physical safeguards alone are insufficient. Students must also feel safe enough to communicate pain, confusion, fear, hesitation, and possible equipment concerns, and socially secure enough to do so without losing standing in the group.

“The nonphysical conditions of the learning environment are part of the safety system.”

When students can speak honestly and participate without social penalty, teachers receive better information. This supports earlier risk identification, more effective risk mitigation, and stronger student engagement.

The framework

The three layers of safety

The layers describe different questions a teacher must answer. No single layer can compensate fully for the absence of another.

01

Physical Safety

Is this student appropriately prepared, supported, and protected for what they are being asked to do?

Physical safety is protection from preventable bodily harm. Risk mitigation includes sound rigging practices, equipment inspection, appropriate matting, spotting, emergency preparation, instructor competence, thoughtful progressions, and teaching decisions adapted to the student’s current capacity.

Managing risk also depends on accurate information. A teacher cannot respond to pain, confusion, fatigue, fear, or a possible rigging problem that no one feels able to mention. For that reason, physical safety is partly produced through the other two layers.

IncludesRigging and equipment · Progressions and prerequisites · Spotting and matting · Workload and readiness · Emergency response · Instructor judgment
02

Psychological Safety

Can this student tell the truth about what they understand, feel, notice, and need?

Psychological safety is the shared belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks. Amy Edmondson’s foundational research connected psychological safety with learning behaviors such as asking questions, seeking feedback, discussing mistakes, and raising concerns.3

In aerial instruction, these learning behaviors can also function as physical safety mechanisms. Psychological safety allows a student to say:

  • “I don’t understand. Can you explain that again?”
  • “This hurts.”
  • “I’m scared,” or “I’m not ready.”
  • “Can I ask a Level 1 question in this Level 2 class?”
  • “Something about the rigging looks unusual.”

A student who feels pressure to appear capable may withhold the exact information a teacher needs to prevent injury. Psychological safety does not remove challenge, discomfort, accountability, or appropriate risk. It creates the conditions for honest communication while students navigate them.

Research rootsEdmondson (1999): psychological safety and learning behavior · Edmondson (2002): managing the interpersonal risks of learning
03

Social Safety

Can this student participate without being socially diminished, excluded, or treated as a problem?

Social safety is the experience of being a legitimate and valued member of the learning community. It is shaped by belonging, inclusion, group norms, teacher attention, peer behavior, and how differences in level, body, age, ability, identity, or learning speed are treated.

A large body of research identifies belonging as a fundamental human motivation.4 In education, a randomized controlled study by Walton and Cohen found that an intervention designed to strengthen social belonging improved academic and health outcomes over time for students whose belonging was more likely to be uncertain.5

These findings do not establish a universal formula for aerial student retention. They do support the framework’s premise that belonging affects how people interpret difficulty and whether they remain engaged. Students are more likely to persist when struggling, modifying, or learning differently does not threaten their place in the group.

Research rootsBaumeister & Leary (1995): belonging as a fundamental human motivation · Walton & Cohen (2011): belonging, academic outcomes, and health
The interaction

Each layer strengthens the others.

A weakness in one layer can destabilize the entire learning environment. Technically correct rigging does not create complete safety if a student is afraid to report pain or point out something unusual.

The three layers of safety are mutually reinforcing A triangular model connects physical safety, psychological safety, and social safety in both directions.
Selected layer

Physical safety

Appropriate equipment, progressions, supervision, and instructor judgment protect students. They also signal that students’ bodies and readiness matter.

Select a layer or a connecting pathway to explore the system.

The implication

Safety in aerial is not simply a checklist of proper equipment & rigging practices. It is a deliberately created learning condition in which students are physically protected, able to communicate honestly, and secure in their place within the group.

Proactively developing all three layers supports risk mitigation, expands inclusion, strengthens learning outcomes, and creates the conditions for student retention.

References
  1. Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
  2. Gibson, J. L., & Sutherland, J. L. (2023). Keeping your mouth shut: Spiraling self-censorship in the United States. Political Science Quarterly, 138(3), 361–376. doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad037
  3. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. doi.org/10.2307/2666999
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  5. Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364

Scope note: The cited research was not conducted in aerial classrooms. The Layers of Safety Framework applies established findings about psychological safety, learning behavior, and belonging to the specific demands and consequences of aerial instruction.

This framework was developed by Sara Kaiser, founder of Embodied Aerial and creator of the BLOOM Aerial Teacher Training. It informs Sara’s approach to psychological safety, inclusive pedagogy, risk management, risk mitigation, and student-centered aerial instruction.