Category: Aviation

Introduction

As air transport becomes more popular, tremendous numbers of people use the services of the aviation industry when travelling each year. However, aircraft are advanced and highly complex pieces of technology which are rather expensive and require constant and thorough maintenance. In addition, accidents in the aviation industry often tend to be lethal. This combination of factors makes the issue of aviation security paramount. In this paper, a literature review will be conducted to identify potential issues in aviation security. After that, these problems will be further discussed and recommendations will be provided so as to address these issues and further increase the effectiveness of aviation security measures.

Literature Review

Nowadays, the aviation industry has become a target for a variety of terrorist attacks due to the fact that it plays a critical role in the economies of countries around the world (Cole & Kuhlmann 2012). In addition, although civil aviation is estimated to be the safest type of transport available today, it is often feared by passengers because of its height above the ground; people tend to be afraid that the plane will malfunction and fall out of the sky, even though the highest levels of danger are usually present during take-off or landing (Price & Forrest 2016).

Indeed, the fear of being a passenger on an airplane involved in an accident (see Figure 1 below) can considerably reduce the number of airline customers. Also, building aircraft requires an extremely large amount of resources and effort; therefore, planes are exceptionally expensive, which makes them a more attractive target for terrorist attacks.

Given the interest that malicious actors have taken in aircraft, maintaining an appropriate level of security when it comes to air transport is paramount (Schouten 2014)—not only because of the extreme costs associated with the destruction of an airplane but also due to the highly adverse impact of such events on the economies of countries and, of course, the safety of the passengers on board (Baker & Benny 2012).

Thus, aviation security remains an important international issue. Numerous international and regional organisations—such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the Arab Civil Aviation Commission (ACAC), the African Civil Aviation Commission (AFCAC), and the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC)—oversee the creation of safety legislation and protocols which are supposed to maximise the level of security in the field of aviation (International Civil Aviation Organization n.d.).

However, because technologies in the contemporary world are developing rapidly, which provides malefactors with a variety of opportunities to cause aviation-related harm, simply complying with safety regulations and legislation created according to the demands of international aviation security organisations does not necessarily prevent terrorism as effectively as possible. This fact can be explained by the rate at which these regulations and pieces of legislation are adopted; such laws and documents are usually created retrospectively and thus lag behind the emerging methods of attack instead of outrunning them (Kaspersen 2016).

The current aviation security system is based on a number of assumptions, one of which is that strict compliance with rules and regulations will maximise the level of safety in the field of aviation (Johnstone 2015); another tacit assumption is that passengers are passive agents, while airport security personnel are active agents who perform acts aimed at safeguarding passengers and their property (Kirschenbaum 2013; Kirschenbaum 2015).

The literature discusses numerous threats to aviation security which exist nowadays. One such danger is related to the increased use of computers and communication technologies in the sphere of aviation; the need for precise communication and the increased reliance on communication technology makes aviation particularly vulnerable to cyber-attacks (Strohmeier et al. 2016). The electronic systems used in aviation that are potentially vulnerable to cyber-attacks include, but are not limited to, flight management systems, air traffic control systems, cargo management, on-board navigation systems and computers, and more (Paganini 2014).

On the whole, remote electronic attacks on aviation systems are capable of causing severe damage or even serious aircraft accidents (Strohmeier et al. 2016). Moreover, cyber attackers may target aircraft which are used to transport, for instance, hazardous materials; in this case, the potential damage caused by a cyber disruption increases to exceptional levels. In addition, when compared to well-known methods of aviation terrorism like hijacking, it is relatively easy to carry out cyber-attacks. All of these factors make it pivotal to implement effective measures to safeguard the aviation industry from cyber-attacks (Paganini 2014). However, the current defence systems in the cyber sphere are mainly reactive, as cyber defence personnel seek ways to respond to the threats that have already emerged (Cole & Kuhlmann 2012; Strohmeier et al. 2016).

Another problem pertaining to aviation security is the issue of luggage and passenger screening in the airport (Lum et al. 2015). On the one hand, it is crucial to carry out a complete scan of both baggage and passengers in case there is an attempt to carry a forbidden item on board the aircraft. On the other hand, malefactors are still sometimes able to smuggle items on board that can be utilised to cause a disruption or an act of terrorism; for instance, an attempt may be made to carry a chemical liquid bomb or a flammable liquid (Price & Forrest 2016).

These items are considerably harder to detect, and thus they present a serious danger to aviation security. In addition, there exists another important issue related to the screening of passengers and their cargo: the time such screening takes. The fact that every passenger needs to be individually scanned prior to being allowed to board the plane seriously slows down the flow of traffic in the airport (Lum et al. 2015).

To maintain a viable speed of customer flow through the airport, only so much time can be spent screening each passenger. This constraint also means that airports are forced to purchase costly equipment and regularly innovate and upgrade their scanners when models which allow for faster scanning become available; of course, this required expenditure means that airports sometimes have to increase the price of plane tickets to cover the costs of screening equipment, which makes the tickets less attractive to potential customers. In addition, airports are forced to find the right balance between thorough screening and speed of traffic; indeed, an excessively slow passenger flow and overcrowding, apart from making the airport less comfortable and attractive to passengers, pose a significant security threat themselves (Kaspersen 2016).

One more problem related to aviation security pertains to the increasing mechanisation and automation of processes which take place in the airport and on the plane (Price & Forrest 2016). Although the use of innovative technologies and computers to do the work which has previously been done by hand allows for an increase in the speed and efficacy of the processes, these pieces of technology are usually still operated by individuals.

Unfortunately, this means that staff members tend to over-rely on machines and electronics, losing their vigilance and awareness of potential safety and security hazards. In addition, because the greater part of the work is done by a machine or a piece of electronic equipment, the personnel may gradually lose their skills (in case of older, more experienced workers) or not learn these skills at all (in case of new, inexperienced workers). It is clear that both the erosion of skills and the decrease in vigilance compromise the safety of the airport and the aviation industry at large (Price & Forrest 2016).

In addition, there currently exists a kind of malpractice in the field of private aviation which results from the desire of airport management to stay profitable and not share their secrets with their business rivals. Unfortunately, such a desire means that the managers of the airports sometimes decide to keep the most effective and efficient methods, which allow for a considerable increase in the level of aviation security and safety, to themselves, rather than share them with the management teams of other airports (Kaspersen 2016). Clearly, refusing to share the most effective methods for safeguarding airports and aircraft results in a situation in which many airports use less effective security measures than could be utilised, which means greater risks for both passengers and cargo. In addition, when each airport has to invent its own security measures rather than use shared knowledge, the amount of spending that is required for developing such measures increases.

Discussion

On the whole, it is clear that there exists a large number of problems in the system of aviation security which is currently used in airports today. Because aviation security is crucial for the safety of passengers and for the normal functioning of economies around the world, it is pivotal to further discuss these problems and the possible ways of addressing them so as to enhance the level of safety of airports and aircraft (Price & Forrest 2016).

First of all, it is necessary to consider the current framework of assumptions under which the security systems of contemporary airports operate. As previously noted, the current aviation security system is primarily aimed at providing regulations, such as legislation, with which the airports are supposed to comply; it is believed that such regulations will allow for maximising the level of security. However, because regulations are usually adopted only in response to adverse events, it is possible to call such a system a reactive one (Cole & Kuhlmann 2012).

The author of this paper disagrees with the opinion that such a system is capable of providing the optimal level of aviation safety. Indeed, adopting a proactive stance, one in which airports not only comply with regulations but also engage in the modelling of potential events and in the active monitoring of airport areas that are susceptible to a security breach, would appear to be a more effective tactic for enhancing the levels of aviation safety (Cole & Kuhlmann 2012).

In particular, when it comes to cyber safety, it is clear that hacker attacks on airports can cause a significant amount of damage and that no legislation is capable of anticipating all possible avenues of attack which can be targeted at the computers and electronic systems used to control aircraft and manage flights (Strohmeier et al. 2016). Therefore, airports should also adopt a proactive stance with respect to cyber security (Cole & Kuhlmann 2012) and engage in constant screening of their cyber security systems for any vulnerable elements which could become the target of a hack.

As for luggage and passenger screening at the airports, these processes may take considerable amounts of time because an airport has to screen each passenger individually along with every single piece of baggage. Sometimes the need for thorough screening leads to situations in which the passengers have to wait for hours in queues for screening, which also poses a security threat (Kaspersen 2016). In addition, there exists the issue of race; representatives of certain races are considerably more likely to attract attention from security personnel and be additionally searched (Lum et al. 2015).

Therefore, it is paramount to find the right balance between searching and screening and establishing an appropriate speed of passenger flow. It is also necessary to address the issue of additional suspicion towards representatives of non-White races; apart from the unfair treatment of the representatives of those races, such bias might also result in compromised security due to a false conviction that a White person would not engage in a terrorist attack (Lum et al. 2015).

When it comes to the increased automation and mechanisation, it is necessary to take measures aimed at prompting the security personnel to remain wary of possible problems, even in cases where they rely on innovative equipment (Price & Forrest 2016). As stressed above, it might still be possible to smuggle dangerous materials through security scanners. Therefore, it is clear that scanners should not be completely depended upon (Lum et al. 2015).

Finally, the author of this paper disagrees with the opinion that keeping effective ways of dealing with security and safety problems secret from aviation rivals is rational or beneficial. Even though such secrecy might give some companies a competitive advantage, it is a harmful practice to put the profits of a corporation above everything else, including the lives of people (even if these people are customers of a rival company). In addition, by keeping ways of dealing with security issues secret, aviation companies harm not only their competitors but also themselves because open collaboration in this sphere might allow them to increase their own levels of security as well (Kaspersen 2016).

Recommendations

Based on the literature review and the discussion provided above, it is possible to make a number of recommendations for airports aimed at increasing the levels of aviation security and mitigating the existing security threats. First of all, it is necessary to replace the framework which assumes that complying with safety and security regulations such as legislation and recommendations provided by national, regional or international aviation organisations allows for maximal levels of security (Johnstone 2015); indeed, such compliance is only the bare minimum required to achieve acceptable levels of aviation security.

The airports should take a proactive stance when it comes to the issue of safety and security of airports and aircraft (Cole & Kuhlmann 2012). It can also be advised that each airport management team should make more of an effort aimed at identifying the areas which are weak and potentially vulnerable to a security breach. It is also possible to consider the inclusion of additional agents into safety procedures—for instance, the passengers.

While passengers are often perceived as passive consumers of air transportation services, they are in fact interested in maximising the levels of aircraft safety, and it has been stated that they often take an active stance with respect to security issues (Kirschenbaum 2013; Kirschenbaum 2015). Therefore, it is only necessary to consider the areas in which the desire of passengers to help with security problems may be used in such a manner that their voluntary contributions would be useful.

When it comes to the issue of cyber security (Paganini 2014), it is recommended for airport management to take a proactive stance towards the danger of cyber-attacks, not only attempting to react to the problems that have emerged but also proactively identifying the weak points in cyber security and strengthening them (Cole & Kuhlmann 2012; Strohmeier et al. 2016). In particular, it may be advised to hire the services of the so-called ‘white hackers’—professionals in the area of cyber security who would deliberately try to hack the defence system of an airport with the sole purpose of identifying its weaknesses and taking measures to address them (Kaspersen 2016).

Even though it may be difficult to control the effort of such white hackers (e.g., real hackers would probably be more motivated to breach the system), it may be worth hiring their services, especially if one takes into account the amount of potential damage that would be caused by a real cyber security breach (Paganini 2014).

When it comes to luggage and passenger screening, apart from recommending the use of innovative technologies permitting faster screening of passengers and their cargo, it may be advised to adopt a different approach to screening altogether. Instead of only looking for bombs, weapons, hazardous materials and metal objects (see Figure 2 below), the security personnel may also want to start looking for terrorists themselves (Price & Forrest 2016; Rae 2012).

For instance, people who are about to commit a dangerous and unlawful act may feel very worried or uneasy; consequently, it may be possible to employ technologies which, for instance, allow for the detection of people who are in a state of anxiety or worry and then signal for additional screening or searching (Rae 2012). Of course, the downside of such technology is the potentially high risk of a false alarm, but a false alarm is still better than an airplane crash; in addition, the technologies and techniques for detecting potential malefactors may be refined over time.

Also, as noted previously, the automation and mechanisation of processes should not be a reason for security personnel to lose vigilance (Baker & Benny 2012). It is recommended to better train the personnel to take adequate measures in case of situations in which the technologies fail (Baker & Benny 2012). For this purpose, it may be advised to hire people who would work in secret and try to smuggle illegal items on board.

Such people should be specifically hired and trained, and the scenarios for smuggling items or performing other security breaches should be carefully developed for each particular airport. This undercover system would allow for both testing the existing defences and keeping the security personnel vigilant, especially in the case of a successful (undetected) action.

Finally, it may also be recommended that airports willingly participate in cooperation and the sharing of all information pertaining to aviation security (Kaspersen 2016). As previously stressed, this shared knowledge may save innocent lives and decrease potential damage to property. On the whole, it would be best if legal mechanisms were created to require airports to share their so-called trade secrets in the sphere of security with their competitors.

There are potential downsides to this recommendation, however; for instance, shared information might be leaked, in which case the security system of multiple airports would be compromised; this possibility means that the process of sharing itself needs to be well-defended, which may make it difficult to control and legally enforce. Another potential disadvantage is that rival airports might use the shared information as an unfair means of competition; however, in the modern world of business, when companies engage in stiff competition, using unfair means to beat rivals is always a possibility.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there currently exist several issues related to aviation security. These pertain to the general approach to security, the risk of cyber-attacks, the effectiveness of security scans, and so on. To improve the levels of security in aviation, it is recommended for airport management to take a more proactive stance towards security, to continuously test the existing defences (e.g., by using white hackers and hoax smugglers), and to share all relevant information related to security in spite of the fact that different airports are often business rivals.

Reference List

Baker, PR & Benny, DJ 2012, The complete guide to physical security, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

BBC News 2015, ‘Glasgow Prestwick Airport to install new security scanner‘, BBC News. Web.

Cole, M & Kuhlmann, A 2012, ‘A scenario-based approach to airport security’, Futures, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 319-327.

Hill, J 2013, Asiana plane crash kills 3. Web.

International Civil Aviation Organization n.d., The postal history of ICAO: civil aviation commissions. Web.

Johnstone, RW 2015, Protecting transportation: implementing security policies and programs, Butterworth-Heinemann, Waltham, MA.

Kaspersen, A 2016, Four threats to aviation security – and four responses. Web.

Kirschenbaum, A 2013, ‘The cost of airport security: the passenger dilemma’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 30, pp. 39-45.

Kirschenbaum, A 2015, ‘The social foundations of airport security’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 48, pp. 34-41.

Lum, C, Crafton, PZ, Parsons, R, Beech, D, Smarr, T & Connors, M 2015, ‘Discretion and fairness in airport security screening’, Security Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 352-373.

Paganini, P 2014, Cyber threats against the aviation industry. Web.

Price, JC & Forrest, JS 2016, Practical aviation security: predicting and preventing future threats, 3rd edn, Elsevier, New York, NY.

Rae, J 2012, ‘Will it ever be possible to profile the terrorist?’, Journal of Terrorism Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 64-74.

Schouten, P 2014, ‘Security as controversy: reassembling security at Amsterdam Airport’, Security Dialogue, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 23-42.

Strohmeier, M, Schäfer, M, Smith, M, Lenders, V & Martinovic, I 2016, ‘Assessing the impact of aviation security on cyber power’, 8th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, Tallinn, Estonia, pp. 223-241.

For the last decade, the number of U.S. General Aviation Accidents varied around 7 percent (Aircrafts Owners and Pilots Association par.1). Last year this number decreased to 5.85 percent (Pope par. 3). Though the National Transportation Safety Board states that the percent of general aviation accidents is 95 of all aviation cases (“Review of US Civil Aviation Accidents” 22). Anyway, “the lessons from accidents have played an important role in the process to continue improving aviation safety” (Federal Aviation Administration par. 1). The purpose of the current essay is to analyze the reasons that lead students not to fill in safety reports, stating their mistakes, and the measures that can be taken to improve the situation.

The article Safety Occurrences Student Perceptions Regarding Failures to Report is taken as the basis of the analysis. The analyzed article illuminates certain important issues that should be taken into the account (Dillman 10). The research reflects that there is always a certain amount of people who are afraid to be punished and would rather keep their mistakes to themselves, not reporting them. The cases of not sharing the personal negative experience, but declaration of mistakes by themselves was noted in more than a half of students, while the other students agreed to share their errors in the reports so others could be warned. The expenses are also an issue. The students are not likely to report if they will have to pay money for the additional training. The students trust the flight department, they accept that it acts in the interest of their safety and is opened to discussion. The lack of time or opportunity to fill in a safety report is a big issue. It also may lead to forgetting the error made. The negative attitude of others, the personal embarrassment caused by the attitude, and the disrespect to the people of authority who do break the safety rules by themselves, but demand the students to follow the rules and fill in the reports is also considered to be a serious reason.

Some reasons for not filling in the reports revealed in the paper are easily solved by increasing the level of privacy both in the process of working on reports and the discussion of the mistakes made. The negative attitude and judging of colleagues could not be taken into account if this measure will be applied. The other issues seem to be common to a collegiate setting as well as to all other reporting systems. No one is likely to listen to the authority or the instructor who does not follow the protocol and demands the student to follow it himself. Only the minority of people will turn in the report if they know that they will get a disrespectful attitude due to the errors they have listed.

It is obvious that something should be done to encourage the practice of reporting the errors the pilot faced during the operation of an aircraft, even if these errors are of a personal kind that might be considered as “stupid”. The listing of corrective measures and ideas applied can be started with the vivid case studies, presenting both the situation when the serious accident was avoided due to the data reported, and the situation when the accident took place but could easily be avoided if the report would be filled in. The other possible solutions are that a trusted and respected person should demand to follow rules, i.e. to ask to turn reports in; there should be a friendly and respectful atmosphere within the department; the procedure of filling in the reports should be simple and available, etc. Also, as the researchers mention, the reporters need to assimilate the benefit of reporting (Kohn, Corrigan and Donaldson 105).

All the written above states that the practice of filling in the reports is very important and has to be encouraged by all available means.

Works Cited

Aircrafts Owners and Pilots Association, “General Aviation Safety Record – Current and Historic”. 2015. Web.

Dillman, Brian G., John Voges, and Michael Robertson. “Safety occurrences student perceptions regarding failures to report.” Journal of Aviation Management and Education 1.1 (2011): 1-14. Web.

Federal Aviation Administration, “Lessons Learned from Transport Airplane Accidents”. 2015. Web.

Kohn, Linda. T., Janet. M. Corrigan, and Molla Donaldson. S. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Healthcare System. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000. Print.

Pope, Stephen. Flying. Fatal General Aviation Crashes drop to All-Time Low. 2014. Web.

Review of US Civil Aviation Accidents. Calendar Year 2011. Web.

As civil aviation emerged and started evolving in the second half of the 20th century, security-related concerns began appearing. Terrorists would sneak weapons on board of aeroplanes and hijack them for various purposes or utilise explosives to destroy aircraft mid-flight. As such, aviation security planners have begun considering and implementing security policies to prevent such incidents. The screening of passengers and their carry-on luggage for any dangerous items is one practice that was instituted as a result. Over time, it has evolved to become more sophisticated, involving varied and well-researched approaches as well as advanced scanning technology. However, questions regarding the effectiveness of the practice also arose, as there are claims that screening is both ineffective and inconvenient for passengers. This essay will provide a critical analysis of the strengths of screening, such as the prevention of crime, as well as the weaknesses, such as their congestion, bypassability and privacy concerns, that enable its failures to provide an informed view of the practice’s usefulness.

Screening Context and Practices

The term ‘screening’ can be applied to a variety of activities and areas in aviation, and it is essential first to delineate the meaning that will be used in this paper. It will apply the definition provided by Birkland (2006): “security staff inspects passengers at a security point before boarding to check for weapons, explosives, contraband, or other materials deemed to be a hazard to an aircraft” (p. 69). The scope of the search encompasses both the passenger’s body and clothes and their carry-on luggage. According to Stewart and Mueller (2017a), the practice was introduced in 1973, after a series of hijacking incidents that convinced the Federal Aviation Administration to overrule airlines’ objections against passenger searches. Since then, it has evolved considerably, becoming more sophisticated in terms of both technology and the methods used to conduct screenings efficiently.

A variety of methods and techniques exists for the performance of a screening procedure. Initially, it involved physical searches of each passenger and their carry-on luggage by the guards due to a lack of suitable equipment (Wallis, 2013). However, the practice was inconvenient for both passengers and security personnel due to its invasion of privacy and time requirements. Shortly after, airports started switching to metal detectors, both stationary and handheld, and X-ray scanners to detect guns and hand grenades, though both tools could only do so indirectly (Price & Forrest, 2016). Kearns (2018) adds that these measures are still at the centre of screening procedures nowadays, though modifications such as explosive detection via residue sampling and full-body scanners have been introduced at some airports. All of these technologies have considerable limitations, which aviation security providers try to address with other methods.

The lounges that are present at most airports, where passengers wait for their departure after checking in, are closely related to screening. Sweet (2009) describes them as a sterile area that is protected from danger because a person has to be checked to obtain permission to enter. To that end, passengers are expected to stay in the area once they pass the screening to minimise the risk of them interacting with an outside party that has not been vetted. Wallis (2003) describes two significant benefits to the usage of centralised sterile area-based screening over gate checks: cost savings and additional prevention opportunities. A single system for all passengers can use fewer security workers than would be necessary for providing a full screening crew for each gate without significant performance loss. Additionally, the sterile zone provides additional time for security personnel to find threats through methods other than screening, such as investigations by intelligence agencies, and respond to them before they have access to the aircraft. Such an intervention would not be possible if they were screened at the gate and proceeded to board immediately.

Trained security staff conduct screenings and make the final decision regarding whether the passenger’s belongings contain any dangerous items. Sauter and Carafano (2019) note that airports employed private companies for the purpose until, following the 9/11 attacks, the United States government formed the Transportation Security Administration and charged it with maintaining aviation security. The newly founded organisation would then introduce a variety of stringent policies, such as the restriction of screening positions to its workers. As a result, almost all of the private security providers lost their contracts with airports and were forced out of the screening process or subsumed by the TSA (Nemeth, 2017). Other nations followed the example of the United States, deeming airport protection a matter of national security and introducing a governmental security service that manages their operations.

The Failures of Screening

Over time, screenings have earned a reputation for being expensive and inefficient, leading to significant passenger dissatisfaction. Elias (2010) highlights how, despite the TSA’s objective of achieving waiting times of no more than ten minutes, passengers can spend upwards of forty minutes in screening queues at busy airports. As a result, their experience suffers considerably, which can create dissatisfaction, particularly when combined with the restrictions such as the liquid ban. Schneier (2003) describes complaints about public baggage searches and embarrassments and adds an account of how diabetics could not take their medication aboard planes for a year after 9/11. Tyler (2017) notes that screening is expensive, with the TSA’s security personnel being three times as numerous as their private counterparts were before 2001 at 60,000 (before the 2003 introduction of a 45,000 maximum limit). Moreover, despite all these issues, screening struggles to achieve its objective.

Metal detectors are ineffective against non-metallic weapons and explosives, and X-ray scanners only provide the general shapes of items without identifying their nature. Tyler (2017) notes that a non-metallic box cutter was used in the 9/11 attacks and proposes the scenario of the terrorist wearing body-conformal explosives while also stating that carry-on luggage inspections are inadequate. Advanced explosives are more readily available than before due to the advancement of technology, as are weapons that bypass scanners. As a result, numerous incidents occurred where terrorists and civilian testers took weapons through screenings undetected, leading to media exposé articles as well as extensive research into possible weaknesses (Cobb & Primo, 2003). All of these issues have combined to create a negative public perception of airport screening as an intrusive, slow and ineffective procedure.

Critical Analysis

Overall, passenger screening appears to have achieved its objective, at least partially. McCrie and Haas (2018) highlight how security personnel confiscate numerous dangerous items during checks daily despite their issues and disadvantages. Presumably, the people who carried these objects would have been able to sneak them on board the aeroplane and possibly use them to endanger the other passengers. However, as Hodwitz (2020) notes, while screening measures may have had a limited effect on the incidence of attacks on the aviation industry, it is challenging to separate any individual intervention and evaluate its effectiveness. As such, there are few quantitative evaluations of which approaches effectively improve the performance of screening procedures and which ones harm it. However, it is still possible to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect of screening.

Metal detectors will be the first item category that is featured in this essay. Alsaedi, Algizi, Iqbal and Resan (2016) note that most weapon detection devices use electromagnetic systems because of their ability to react to metals and produce assessments of the size, position and shape of the object. With that said, these claims do not necessarily correspond to the practical usage of metal detectors at airports. Skorupski and Uchroński (2017) find that a configuration that enables these advantages reduces the throughput of a metal detector significantly, compounding the procedure’s congestion issues, and that most managers set them to lower sensitivity as a result. Due to this decision, the scanners lose a significant portion of their effectiveness and begin manifesting effectiveness issues. These problems can be classified into false positives and negatives, with each happening for different reasons.

False positives occur when the scanner detects an object that is not a threat. They are particularly problematic when the passenger cannot remove the item in question. Kimura, Jinno, Tsukada, Matsubara and Koga (2019) supply the example of hip prostheses, with false alarm rates during screening reaching 86% for some categories of patients on international flights. The reaction is likely to prompt a more detailed search from the security staff, which wastes time and creates privacy concerns. A false negative is a situation where a dangerous item passes through the scanner undetected, letting the person take it to the aeroplane. Metal detectors have a significant limitation of being unable to react to non-metallic objects. However, Larson, Paulter Jr. and Troje (2019) also find that metals can sometimes pass through undetected by following non-linear trajectories, such as those that result from walking. As such, the technology is not entirely reliable even for its intended purposes.

Non-metallic threats warrant additional mention because of recent advances in technology that make them more widely available. Jacobs and Haberman (2017) explain how 3D printing technology can be used to produce working firearms from plastic. With that said, the ineffectiveness of metal detectors against these threats as well as other tools, such as ceramic knives, has led researchers to consider other methods of detecting hidden objects. In particular, terahertz imaging is a prospective method of non-invasive screening that is moving toward usability, being potentially able to see through clothing at adequate resolutions (Kowalski, 2019; Stantchev et al., 2016). With that said, the method’s non-discriminatory nature also creates privacy concerns, since the security personnel would likely be able to see the entirety of the person’s body.

Full-body scanners, which have been adopted in some airports throughout the world, tend to use either terahertz (or sub-terahertz) imaging or backscattering X-rays. Nugraha and Choi (2016) compare them to full undressing and add that strict legal and data protection frameworks should be applied to them to avoid misuse by security personnel. Full-body scanners can reveal features such as scars, amputated limbs, or medical devices that are located on the person’s body. In some locations, passengers are permitted to opt-out of going through these checks because of these concerns. However, as Windham (2016) observes, agencies such as TSA have made it mandatory for some people, chosen at the time of them receiving the boarding pass at the discretion of the agency, to undergo the check, endangering their privacy as a result. Overall, the technology is still controversial and not ready for adoption worldwide.

X-ray imaging is typically employed for the analysis of carry-on luggage. It is not used on passengers because of the health concerns associated with the radiation involved in the approach. As Arcúrio, Nakamura and Armborst (2018) note, the equipment has advanced considerably throughout its usage, becoming capable of providing high-resolution images and offering additional tools. However, it is still managed by a human operator, who is prone to errors because of factors such as positioning, lack of experience, or pressure to complete the task quickly. Skorupski and Uchroński (2018) add that it is possible to train personnel to achieve improved outcomes, though in doing so, their throughput will become lower. However, it is impossible to eliminate the human factor as long as people are involved in the process, and so, research is ongoing into alternate solutions.

Automation is one of the most prominent topics for the improvement of the overall quality of X-ray screening. Hättenschwiler, Sterchi, Mendes and Schwaninger (2018) state that automated explosive detection systems are already available for purchase, both in the form of decision aids and fully independent systems. Chavaillaz, Schwaninger, Michel and Sauer (2019) note that the first system type is effective at improving the performance of less experienced workers, though it has a negligible effect for experts. With that said, fully automated systems have higher overall potential because of their higher overall versatility and effectiveness that is enabled by big data approaches. Riffo, Flores and Mery (2017) have been able to produce promising results with a gun and razor detection algorithm over 360 inspections. However, fully automatic measures require additional development to mature to a stage where they can replace people.

Passenger reception of screenings tends to be negative for a variety of reasons, many of which involve anxiety. Maliwat (2018) discusses how over half of the passengers in his study feel frustration, fear, or humiliation during screenings, fearing mistreatment or lateness. Remarkably, Sakano, Obeng and Fuller (2016) connect perceptions of long waiting times with low confidence in the security provided by the screening. Passengers likely associate long waiting times with an overburdened system that cannot devote adequate attention to each case. Güreş et al. (2017) recommend improvements in the interpersonal competencies of the screening staff as a measure that can create a perception of competence and safety, increasing customer satisfaction. Friendly and competent workers would alleviate some of the passengers’ concerns over mistreatment or failure to apprehend a dangerous individual.

The final topic discussed in this essay will be the congestion of screening terminals that is prevalent in many large airports. Elias (2010) notes that space limitations mean that many airports cannot accommodate the increasing passenger flow with current screening procedures due to the design of their facilities. Other factors also slow down the process, such as the 20-minute continuous operation limitation for screener work (Buser, Sterchi, & Schwaninger, 2020). There are potential approaches that can help improve waiting times, such as that proposed by Rizk, Mora-Camino and Batatia (2018). However, the ultimate benefits of such methods are limited, especially if the regulating agencies retain the 100% screening rate requirement.

The only potential solutions to the issue of time usage and congestion that were found are increased automation, which was discussed above, and selective screening. An analysis of the TSA’s expedited screening program, PreCheck, has shown that it likely does not increase attack risk and may reduce it instead (Stewart & Mueller, 2017b). However, the issue of identification arises, which Hilton (2016) proposes to resolve through improved fingerprinting technology. It can enable passengers who are not considered a security concern to quickly pass the inspection, freeing up its resources and reducing congestion. However, as Haas (2019) counters, security gains that are currently enabled by biometrics technology do not warrant the reduction in privacy that is associated with it. Overall, the congestion and passenger dissatisfaction issues are likely to remain unaffected soon due to the lack of alternatives.

Conclusion

Overall, passenger screening at airports in its current form appears to be necessary and unavoidable despite its considerable drawbacks. The primary issues that face it are safety, throughput constraints and the invasion of privacy that is involved in the searching of one’s belongings. Current alternatives will generally harm one of these aspects to improve the other. However, technologies that are currently in development may help alleviate the issue by improving the speed and accuracy of the screening operations. With that said, they are also associated with specific issues; most importantly, the privacy considerations that are involved in sophisticated scanners and biometric technology. The research has led to the conclusion that the only currently feasible alternative would be to research all passengers to identify potential threats ahead of time and detain them, but this method creates concerns over privacy. Overall, aviation security professionals have to continuously observe new research and look for opportunities until they can identify feasible solutions to current issues that address the underlying concerns.

References

Alsaedi, M. A., Algizi, A., Iqbal, Z., & Resan, A. (2016). Survy of methods and techniques for metal detection. Optics, 5(1), 1-10.

Arcúrio, M. S., Nakamura, E. S., & Armborst, T. (2018). Human factors and errors in security aviation: An ergonomic perspective.Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018. Web.

Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Buser, D., Sterchi, Y., & Schwaninger, A. (2020). Why stop after 20 minutes? Breaks and target prevalence in a 60-minute X-ray baggage screening task.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 76. Web.

Chavaillaz, A., Schwaninger, A., Michel, S., & Sauer, J. (2019). Expertise, automation and trust in X-ray screening of cabin baggage.Frontiers in Psychology, 10. Web.

Cobb, R. W., & Primo, D. M. (2003). The plane truth: Airline crashes, the media, and transportation policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Elias, B. (2010). Airport and aviation security: U.S. policy and strategy in the age of global terrorism. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Güreş, N., Yılmaz, H., Arslan, S., Durmuşçelebi, C., Yüksel, C., & Ünsal, H. H. (2017). Researching the satisfaction levels of passengers for security services at airports. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 9(5), 125-134.

Haas, E. P. (2019). Back to the future: The use of biometrics, its impact on airport security, and how this technology should be governed. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 84(4), 459-489.

Hättenschwiler, N., Sterchi, Y., Mendes, M., & Schwaninger, A. (2018). Automation in airport security X-ray screening of cabin baggage: Examining benefits and possible implementations of automated explosives detection. Applied Ergonomics, 72, 58-68.

Hilton, C. (2016). Fingerprints: A new means of identification in airport security screening. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 81(3), 561-591.

Hodwitz, O. (2020). Threats to aviation: Modeling effectiveness. Journal of Applied Security Research. Advance online publication. Web.

Jacobs, J. B., & Haberman, A. (2017). 3D-printed firearms, do-it-yourself guns, & the Second Amendment. Law & Contemporary Problems, 80(2), 129-147.

Kearns, S. K. (2018). Fundamentals of international aviation. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Kimura, A., Jinno, T., Tsukada, S., Matsubara, M., & Koga, H. (2019). Detection of total hip prostheses at airport security checkpoints. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 25(2), 255-260.

Kowalski, M. (2019). Hidden object detection and recognition in passive terahertz and mid-wavelength infrared. Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves, 40, 1074-1091.

Larson, D. R., Paulter, N. G., & Troje, N. F. (2019). Walk-through metal detector testing and the need to emulate natural body motion. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 47(1), 627-639.

Maliwat, J. D. (2018). Five typical emotional reactions to airport security screening: A case study. Psychology Research, 8(12), 594-602.

McCrie, R., & Haas, D. (2018). Why airline passenger screening will be with us forever: past, present, and prospects for air travel safety. Journal of Applied Security Research, 13(2), 149-159.

Nemeth, C. P. (2017). Private security: An introduction to principles and practice. London, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

Nugraha, R. A., & Choi, J. (2016). Body scanners within airport security systems: Security or privacy issue? The Aviation & Space Journal, 15(3), 11-24.

Price, J., & Forrest, J. (2016). Practical aviation security: Predicting and preventing future threats (3rd ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Riffo, V., Flores, S., & Mery, D. (2017). Threat objects detection in X-ray images using an active vision approach.Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 36(3). Web.

Rizk, C., Mora-Camino, F., & Batatia, H. (2018). Optimisation of passenger screening operations in air terminals. Transportation Research Procedia, 35, 23-34.

Sakano, R., Obeng, K., & Fuller, K. (2016). Airport security and screening satisfaction: A case study of US. Journal of Air Transport Management, 55, 129-138.

Sauter, M., & Carafano, J. J. (2019). Homeland security: A complete guide (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Schneier, B. (2003). Beyond fear: Thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. New York, NY: Copernicus Books.

Skorupski, J., & Uchroński, P. (2017). A fuzzy model for evaluating metal detection equipment at airport security screening checkpoints. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 16, 39-48.

Skorupski, J., & Uchroński, P. (2018). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an airport passenger and baggage security screening system. Journal of Air Transport Management, 66, 53-64.

Stantchev, R. I., Sun, B., Hornett, S. M., Hobson, P. A., Gibson, G. M., Padgett, M. J., & Hendry, E. (2016). Non-invasive, near-field terahertz imaging of hidden objects using a single-pixel detector.Science Advances, 2(6). Web.

Stewart, M. G., & Mueller, J. (2017a). Are we safe enough? Measuring and assessing aviation security. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Stewart, M. G., & Mueller, J. (2017b). Risk and economic assessment of expedited passenger screening and TSA PreCheck. Journal of Transportation Security, 10, 1-22.

Sweet, K. M. (2009). Aviation and airport security: Terrorism and safety concerns (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Tyler, S. L. (2017). Airport security: Passenger screening and governance post-9/11. Pittsburgh, PA: RoseDog Books.

Wallis, R. (2003). How safe are our skies? Assessing the airlines’ response to terrorism. Westport, CN: Praeger Publishers.

Wallis. R. (2013). The role of international aviation organisations in enhancing security. In B. Jenkins & P. Wilkinson (Eds.), Aviation terrorism and security (pp.83-100). London, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

Windham, E. (2016). The TSA opting-out of opt-outs: The new TSA full-body scanner guidelines and travelers’ right to privacy. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 17(5), 329-367.

There are various reasons why aviation security has become a serious problem beginning in the 20th century. After modern man perfected the art and science of establishing airliners, terrorist groups, hostile nation-states, and criminal syndicates found the best platform for delivering their message or forcing others to do their bidding. Most of the time hijackers are motivated by extreme political or religious views.

But in recent times this method of blackmail and coercion has gone to the next level because hijackers are no longer content to simply use the subsequent media exposure to express their religious or political views, they can now use the airplanes as a huge improvised weapon. In this regard, the U.S. government had to adapt to these changes so that using airplanes as a means of transportation will remain to be the safest mode of transportation in the 21st century.

When hijacking coincided with the rapid improvements in aircraft technology and the creation of national airline carriers, the United States’ first response was to deputize air marshals (Agle, par. 12). The idea behind such a strategy is similar to placing a sheriff in a highly volatile town but instead of a small county, the air marshals will patrol a steel tube flying tens of thousands of feet above the ground. The only problem with the institution of air marshals is arguably in the human resources department because of the disproportionate number of commercial airplanes to air marshals. Thus, it was a common occurrence that if the threat level has been reduced the air marshal program tended to be relegated to a corner (Agle, par. 14). This should not be if passengers must regain confidence in the safety of the airline industry.

One of the most important strategies in improving aviation security is to leverage cutting-edge computer technology such as the use of networked databases and biometrics (Salter, p. 29). The purpose of these innovative solutions is to improve their ability to store data as well as the fast retrieval of the same. A secondary purpose is to be able to share information across agencies and if needed be across continents. Globalization has significantly increased the mobility of people and therefore it is much harder to track down suspected terrorists as well as men and women who belonged to America’s most wanted list.

Aside from the use of technology, the foremost weapon against hijacking and terror groups is the law. Thus, after 9/11 the U.S. Federal government created laws that would help secure airports. These are laws related to the Transportation Security Regulations such as the designation of specific areas in airports such as air operations areas, secure areas, and sterile areas (Wells & Young, p. 287). These regulations have made it easier to secure the airport while at the same time creating a deterrent for potential terrorists.

Steps taken to improve aviation security must be commended. It can be argued that the U.S. Federal government did an excellent job in responding to the challenge of securing airports. This is an almost impossible task considering the sheer volume of air traffic and the number of people moving across America and the globe. As a result, new laws and new technologies are being utilized to prevent terrorist attacks as well as to assure the public that they can still believe that air travel is the safest mode of travel in the 21st century. On the other hand, people must be warned against predictable human nature and this is the fact that when the threat level has gone down, the vigilance and need for continuous improvement also tend to die down.

It used to be limited to hijackings and bombings but after September 11, 2001, the whole world realized that aviation security threats have evolved into something deadlier and require great effort to control and mitigate the deadly impact of terrorist and radical groups. Hijacking an airplane is the preferred method of choice to get the world’s attention especially in matters regarding religious beliefs and political agenda.

Terrorist groups, extremists, and criminal syndicates will board an aircraft to hijack the plane and take the passengers hostage so that they can blackmail a government to release prisoners or pay the ransom. But after 9/11 airplanes did not remain as a tool to voice out their political and religious views it has now become an instrument of destruction when directed towards their foes. Today, aviation security threats have evolved to include “…hijackings, sabotage, shooting down an aircraft and assaults on airports and related ground facilities” (Harrison, p. 53). This is the main reason why the U.S. government must continue to improve aviation security.

The first documented aircraft hijacking occurred on February 21, 1931, in Arequipa, Peru when revolutionaries seized control of a small aircraft piloted by Byron Rickards (Agle, par. 10). Revolutionaries tried to commandeer his aircraft so it can be used to drop political leaflets (Agle, par. 10). In the 1960s hijacking became more common as hijackers targeted commercial airlines so they can be diverted to Cuba (Agle, par. 11). In the 1970s hijacking or skyjacking became more serious because hijackers are not only driven by political beliefs but by an extreme form of ideology such as the gun-toting zealots of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Agle, par. 12). This time around the goal was not only to seize control of the aircraft but also to destroy it.

One of the most common tactics is to use explosives against civil aviation (Harrison, p. 53). Many are perpetrated by non-state groups but three of the most deadly were carried out by states. These are a) In 1987 North Korean intelligence agents placed a bomb aboard KAL Flight 858; b) In December of 1988 Libyans conducted well-coordinated attacks on civil aviation; and c) In December 1989, attack over the Niger desert on UTA Flight 772 (Harrison, p. 53). But aside from using bombs the religious zealots of Al-Qaeda found a way to use the aircraft itself as a weapon that can destroy lives, homes, and even the American way of life.

From hijacking to sabotaging terrorist groups, extremists and criminals are now more aware of their capabilities. The U.S. Federal government is on its toes because the memory of 9/11 is still fresh. But what happens when this memory is distant, will it be possible to go back to the same state where the government and its citizens are complacent regarding security issues. In a highly global world, it is now more difficult to track down suspected terrorists.

At the same time, the complex nature of international airports can sometimes make it impossible to monitor them. It seems that no matter how dedicated an organization is when it comes to aviation security, there are simply not enough resources to provide an adequate deterrent mechanism for potential hijackers and saboteurs. The best thing to do is to continually maintain a respectable level of vigilance. There is also a need to improve technology even further so it would be easy to use and less expensive to maintain. Furthermore, there is a need to share data with other government agencies. There must be a way to communicate “sideways” so that related agencies can form a tight network in terms of improving aviation security.

Works Cited

Agle, D.C. “Armed and Anonymous: On your next flight the passenger in the seat beside you could be a federal air marshal.” Air & Space Magazine. 2009. Web.

Harrison, John. International Aviation and Terrorism: Evolving Threats, Evolving Security. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Salter, Mark. Politics at the Airport. MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Wells, Alexander & Seth Young. Airport Planning and Management. New York: McGraw Hill, 2004.

Students should be aware of all the legal aspects of flight, including travelling, cargo transportation or passengers’ flights. The general rules of mediating and solving conflicts, caused by the violation of Aviation law and illegal actions of some crews. Moreover, students should be aware of the actions in the case of possible terroristic assault and in the case when the lives of the passengers are endangered.

It is vitally important to know all the basic international documents of the Aviation law sphere, and pilots should be aware of the domestic legislative regulations of flights and air traffic.

The aviation law disputes originally entail the necessity of having the juries which are professionals in the hearings, as possible disputes, conflicts or misunderstandings generally entail essential sorting out of the incoming information, which incorporates numerous technical data and specifications of the aviation sphere. In the light of this fact, it should be stated that the judge should be able to listen to the points of view of various experts, who may clarify the technical aspects of the conflict, as the aviation sphere entails numerous sub-divisions. Consequently, it is impossible to be aware in all the aspects of aviation structure, thus, the person who takes all the decisions independently, without hearing to the others is not suitable for solving the disputes.

The Aircraft Navigation Technology which is used by FAA is based on the radiolocation technology and Global Positioning System. The fact is that, the development of aerospace technologies, as well as satellite technologies have essentially simplified the radiolocation and finding the necessary object on the globe. GPS is aimed at assisting a pilot to be aware on the location, where his aircraft is moving, and the radio location is aimed at helping the navigation service locate the aircraft and correct the course of its flight. Federal Aviation Administration’s aim is to control the positioning of all the aircrafts which are above the territory of the USA in order to prevent the high-jacking or at least locating it, and monitor the violations of the flight rules.

June 5. an Extra 300L crashed during a training flight near the commune of Clinceni, Ilfov County, Romania ten minutes after departure. The aircraft was prepared for a flight parade for June 6, 2009. Originally, this accident was thoroughly studied, however, experts refrain from making open commentaries. The accident became the reason of improving the system of monitoring the aircraft accidents, as not all the data were available on the aircraft for the moment of the accident. FAA claimed that navigation and controlling structure should be modified.

The fact is that, it is hard to disagree with the FAA, as the downsizing of one of the numerous airports is the necessary measure aimed at improving the Aviation services in general, decreasing the expenses for the airports and simplifying the infrastructure in general. Downsizing of this particular airport can not be regarded as something extraordinary

The local services are originally faster than the regional airports, as there is no the turn of the aircrafts waiting for service. Nevertheless, the technicians of the regional services are more qualified. Thus, it is just necessary to enlarge the teams of the regional services for solving the problems with queues.

Local flight service stations are necessary for the small and private aviation, while civil aviation and jumbo jets can not be serviced by local services. It is explained by the fact that local services are generally too small for large civil aviation companies and huge aircrafts.

First of all it should be stated that both variants of training have their own pros and cons. The fact is that, simulation training is much cheaper, and is aimed at fixing all the basic skills and knowledge for piloting a plane. In the light of this fact, it should be stated that simulation is suitable for the initial training. Nevertheless, it does not help to overcome the psychological barrier of flight and responsibility for the lives of the passengers. Real flight, in its turn, does not forgive the mistakes of piloting, thus, it should be resorted to only after a pilot student showed strong piloting skills on the simulator.

As for the rules, it should be stated that that the more rules, the more responsibility is required from a person. Originally, aviation is the subject of increased danger and responsibility of the pilot for his or her own life and the lives of the surrounding people (passengers or passer byes). Consequently, the stricter the rules, the lesser irresponsible pilots will appear in the air.

As for the matters of the unauthorized parts of the airlines, it should be stated that it is the highest extent of irresponsibility. Surely the reaction of FAA should be close to righteous indignation, as unauthorized (= uncontrolled) airlines may be the reason of a catastrophe.

Introduction

An airline alliance is coming together of two or more airlines and cooperates in their business at a substantial level. In the airline industry, there are three large and known passenger alliances that include, the sky team, Star Alliance and the Oneworld. On the other hand, there are also three cargo airlines alliances including, SkyTeam Cargo, WOW Alliance and ANA/UPS Alliance. The main reason for airline alliancing is to provide a netwowrk that is convenient and easily connected for international passengers and cargo. Alliances start as a code sharing of different airlines and also in order to improve their network and also have some benefits from each other. There are several advantages that are associated with alliances compared to mergers and acquisitions.

Reasons for alliances

There are different reasons why different companies’ alliance and others merge and acquire. Most international airlines alliance to increase their net including benefiting from each member, example, an airline might be flying from New York City to London, with an alliance which flies for example to Tel Aviv, it would be easy and less costly for both passengers and the airline to get their passengers in to their destination as they will proceed with their flight without a need to another airline to get them there. Most passengers prefer one time booking that will take them direct to their destination.

The other reason most companies’ alliance is to reduce competition. When a member airline is flying to a given route, it would be hard for another member airline to introduce their flights to the same area and also it would get passengers from other airlines that do not fly to the route.

Advantages of Alliances

There are various advantages that are associated with alliances. When an airline joins an alliance, it’s guaranteed an extension of its network which is realized through the code sharing agreements.

• The allianced airlines reduce the costs of operations through sharing sales offices.
• The other benefits these airlines gets is through the sharing of the maintenance facilities that enable them maintain their aircrafts in any member hanger without paying.
• Allianced airlines also share operation staff especially the check-in and ground handling personnels.
• For small airlines, they could benefit because large airlines will be doing all the bookings and will only be giving the small airlines to ferry the passengers thus reducing the cost of operation in bookings, large number of employees and can use the large airline facilities without any problem.

Disadvantages of alliances

Though there are advantages associated with alliances, there are also disadvantages that are caused by alliance to the passengers and include:

• When the competition is fully erased in any given route, there is probability that airlines might take advantage and hike their fares. This will be caused by rising demand and reduction of the supply.
• There are always probability of reduced number of flights per day or per any given flight schedule. This could be true especially on shared routes because each airline has to give its affiliate a room thus causing more delays.

Introduction

Indiscipline is the main cause of accidents not just in aviation transport but also in road transport and factories among other sectors. Failure to adhere to standards and rules governing air transport including laxity on the part of relevant parties has led to the loss of thousands of lives. It is however ironic that although we need to have learned this lesson a long time ago, there are still loopholes in management and coordination in air travel leaving thousands of lives at risk especially with a continuous expansion of air travel. I will look at one case where indiscipline on the part of a captain and fellow co-pilots led to the loss of hundreds of lives. (Kern, 1998)

Main Body

In this particular case, an air force pilot in charge of wing Standardization made dangerous attempts to show off his skills. This incident occurred on 24^th June 1994 at Fairchild Air Base in Washington State. After taking off, this pilot in charge made a dangerous 90 degrees wing movement intended to show off although the lane that he was flying was outside such parameters. This was followed by a crash and the death of all on board. This particular case shows how indiscipline by the lieutenant pilot that was in charge and lack of leadership and intervention by fellow pilots led to fatalities. This is something that is still happening in the aviation industry today endangering millions of lives. Although records had shown that this particular pilot had made many other illegal and risky decisions, nothing was done by relevant organs precipitating this particular incident. (Kern, 1998)

Why is it that no action was taken against this lieutenant after making such earlier mistakes? There is a great possibility that there is no effective monitoring mechanism in the air force. These incidents could therefore have gone without resorting to high decision-making organs. Personalization of affairs in the air force where acquaintances and friendship matter more than professionalism can also explain why no action was taken against this lieutenant. It is important to notice that this particular pilot held a high rank of a lieutenant and was in charge of wing standardization meaning that he must have been acquainted with very high-ranking officials in the air force. (Kern, 1998)

With his rank in the air force, this lieutenant must have held some clout of authority and decision-making. He must have chaired important meetings that made decisions that affected the lives of the whole air force in general. This explains why fellow crewmen overlooked his earlier mistakes partly because they must have been afraid of him and desired to be on good terms with him because of his clout. To be in charge of wing standardization, this particular pilot must have gone for specialized training and must have been in charge of training. This meant that fellow pilots must have felt inferior to him and therefore felt no need to report earlier mistakes. (Dekker, 2005)

Because of his positions, the lieutenant held formal and informal authority. This is even made worse by the fact that there is a particular hierarchy in the air force meaning that the lieutenant peers or people below him in rank were the ones required to take decisions against the lieutenant. This played to the lieutenant’s advantage making it very difficult to deal with his mistakes. (Dekker, 2005)

It can be seen that failure to take necessary actions against this lieutenant led to the loss of many lives in the end. It would have been appropriate if earlier incidents by the lieutenant would have been reported. Investigations on the incidents would then have been launched. This should then have prompted disciplinary measures against the lieutenant and any other person that would have been found guilty of omitting responsibility like a failure of reporting indiscipline. Nearly all of the earlier incidents on indiscipline can only be described as gross like flying directly over an air show crowd on May 19, 1991. One can only imagine a potential catastrophe that can occur from such actions. Such indiscipline warrants immediate expulsion from flying activities and the air force besides a long jail term. This should have been done within a framework that would have provided hearing and prosecution by relevant justice systems in the airfare. If such measures had been taken, then the precious lives of the crew onboard the demised flight would have been preserved besides deterring other officers from trying such dangerous gimmicks. (Risukhin, 2001)

Conclusion

Indiscipline remains the major cause of all accidents including air accidents in the world. It is very sad to note that the lack of an effective mechanism of monitoring, evaluating and disciplining pilots and other people in command of flights still exists in our world today. It is very important for the whole aviation industry including the air force to strengthen and improve this mechanism for our air space to be even safer.

References List

Dekker, S. (2005). “Ten Questions about Human Error” Human Factors in Transportation. Routledge.

Kern, T. (1998). “Flight Discipline”. McGraw Hill Professional.

Risukhin, V. (2001). “Controlling Pilot Error” Automation. McGraw-Hill Professional.

On August 10, 1994, Airbus A300 Flight 2033 that was coming from Seoul to Jeju crashed near the runaway making the plane a write-off. After the crash, the aircraft burst into flames but the aircraft crew managed to pull everyone out alive. According to voice prompts retrieved from the black box, the co-pilot decided that there was not enough runway for the plane to land. He advised the pilot to go round but the pilot was not for the idea. The co-pilot went for the throttle making the plane touch down several thousand feet beyond the runaway. This accident clearly points out a case of bad Crew Resource Management (CRM). (Tailstrike, n.d)

Though the plane was approaching the airport at a very fast speed, the pilot should have made his calculation and known that the plane would touch down safely. According to the recording transcripts preceding the crash, the captain was heard saying that they were already at the runaway and therefore the first officer should not have pulled the yoke. This shows that the first officer’s decision to challenge the captain’s authority played a major role in causing the accident. (Sanders, 1999)

Traditionally, any decision that the captain makes is supposed to be respected by everyone the first officer included. By choosing to challenge this authority, there seems to have been a problem that made the first official act the way he did. Given that Captain Barry Woods was a Canadian and that the Co-pilot, Chung Chan Kuy was a Korean, one would be led to conclude that the problem that existed was actually a cultural one. Research has shown that cultural differences especially in communication matters do occur in the aviation industry. While captains from a particular region would want to act in a certain manner, co-pilots from other places would act differently. Cultural problems, therefore, seem to be a contributing factor in the manner that the co-pilot acted toward the captain. (Royal Aeronautical Society, 1999)

The crash of Airbus A300 Flight 2033 would have been avoided if the first officer had shown the required respect toward the captain. By choosing to grab the throttle against the wishes of the captain, the plane ended crashing beyond the runaway. Since research has shown that there exists a cultural problem between captains from different regions, the airline should have allocated a first officer who shared the same culture with the pilot. This would have canceled the cultural differences that existed between the two. Although the captain might have judged the landing time correctly, he should have listened to the advice of his first officer. It was wrong for the pilot to simply stick to his plan disregarding the advice given by his first officer. Considering that the remaining runaway was too small for the plane to be stopped, it shows that the first officer had a valid point in advising the pilot to go round. The failure to heed the advice of the first officer shows us how some captains sometimes make wrong decisions just to prove themselves. (Helmreich, 2000)

Crew Resource Management is something that should be stressed in the aviation industry. The case of a co-pilot disagreeing with the captain is something that should never happen in any given situation. Since the two participate in piloting the same plane, there should be a clear understanding between the two. While assigning pilots for any given flight, airline officials should take into note the cultural differences that exist between pilots and first officers from different places. Captains should on the other part be willing to listen to the advice accorded to them by their first officers. This will in turn avoid accidents caused by Bad Crew Resource Management.

References List

Helmreich, L. (2000) “On error Management: Lessons from Aviation: BMJ; 320:781-5.

Royal Aeronautical Society. (1999) “A Paper by the CRM Standing Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society” Crew Resource Management. London, Web.

Sanders, J. (1999) “Confronting the Boss Indirectly”, Study Of Cockpit Crews Finds Co-Pilots Use “Hints” To Correct Captains. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, Web.

Tailstrike, (n.d) Cockpit Voice Recorder Database. 2010. Web.

Abstract

Very Light jets have set a new tone that forecasts another technological and marketing revolution in the aviation industry (Kearns, 2009). This is particularly true because of the uniqueness of these planes, which employ the latest technologies to incorporate a high degree of automation. Yet, these planes are still expected to retail to the airlines at a relatively affordable price, compared to the cost of other planes on the market. VLJ’s are potentially more economical to operate compared to those planes already in service

. Continued research and further development of VLJ’s will potentially produce planes that are even easier to operate and maintain. To remain relevant in an aviation market impacted by VLJ’s; plans have now been laid out by airlines, governments and regulation bodies to accommodate the anticipated changes in aviation. This direction has, for example, seen the establishment and marketing of the taxi travel model, which is precisely tailored to meet the individual travel needs of customers.

One of the ways that VLJ’s are expected to impact aviation is their potential to increase overall air traffic significantly. This change implies an increased strain on infrastructure, traffic control, control of standards for production of VLJ’s and human resources, and possibly new terrorism threats which can arise from increased air traffic. The aviation industry in general also needs to restructure itself in a significant way to accommodate VLJ’s effectively. Among the changes that are expected to result from the introduction of VLJ’s in aviation include: a taxi air model of travel, restructuring of airports and traffic control, restructuring of the human resource base in aviation and changes in aircraft manufacturing

Effect of Very light Jets on aviation: Effects on Infrastructure, Air travel, Air Traffic Control, Airlines and Aircraft manufacturers

Introduction

In the last fifty years, there has been an exponential growth in the aviation industry. Air travel within and between the continents has contributed in diverse ways to alter our lifestyles. For example, the aviation transport network has been utilized to move people and goods conveniently and on time across thousands of miles, allowing integration of economies and cultures across the world. Many trading activities like the export of perishable goods and an array of other industries including the airline industry that support the global economy have been built around air travel.

Fully recognizing the importance of this industry and the opportunities that it offers, governments, airlines, aircraft manufacturers and regulation bodies have made many attempts to improve air travel. Important players in the aviation industry include plane manufacturers and airline companies. They continually strategize and develop new products and industry solutions that will not only be relevant now and in the future, but will also improve and enhance the services that they already provide to their customers, who include air travelers and air cargo clients. These efforts have seen the development of Very Light Jets (VLJ’s) (Kearns, 2009). Because these jets are new products that have not yet been completely integrated into the aviation market, it is vital to study the possible impacts of these products on the future aviation market.

What are VLJ’s (Very Light Jets)? In general, they are small jets weighing a maximum of 10,000 pounds (GAO, 2007). They have an advanced technical system that allows the pilot to use automation tools in the cockpit, such as displays that perform many tasks and GPS moving maps and an automated system that monitors, manages and coordinates the engine system and other systems (Kearns, 2009). In addition, the new light jets also possess a built-in system for autopilot (Kearns, 2009).

Besides these technical characteristics of VLJ’s, the jets also have additional features in common. Due to their small size, they can only accommodate three to six passengers (Kearns, 2009). Unlike their commercial sisters, they can use short runways; hence they can operate at small airports (Aviation Today, 2007). Moreover, they are normally operated by only one pilot, unlike their commercial jet counterparts that require two pilots. In addition, their market price is relatively low, ranging from slightly less than $1M to about $2M per plane (Kearns, 2009).

Although VLJ’s are expected to be easier- to- maintain planes in terms of maintenance costs, their potential to meet such predicted low maintenance criteria is arguable (GAO, 2007). Their capabilities have not really been comprehensively compared to other planes (GAO, 2007) However, since most VLJ’s are still at an earlier stage of development, companies interested in their design and manufacturing have been making an effort to develop VLJ’s that are not only affordable, but easy to maintain as well (Hawkins, 2008). One such company that has come up with an interesting solution is Diamond Aircraft, a Canadian company (Kearns, 2009).

Diamond Aircraft is a respected company well known for its unique, efficient products and high safety standards. Indeed, the company has the best record in aviation in terms of the safety of its planes that are well known to possess high safety standards (Kearns, 2009).

Diamond Aircraft has been striving to develop a type of VLJ that will operate on just a single engine, known as the D-jet (Kearns, 2007). This plane is expected to significantly reduce maintenance costs because of high fuel efficiency (Kearns, 2007). However, although the D-jet has the capacity to alter the aviation industry in significant ways like its VLJ counterparts, some studies like those undertaken by FAA, have not classified the D-jet as a VLJ-mainly because it has only a single engine (GAO, 2007). Indeed, one difficulty in analyzing the potential effects of VLJ’s in the aviation industry has been a non uniformity in the classification of the type (Aviation Today, 2007).

It is even arguable whether any definable VLJ’s actually exist in aviation currently (GAO, 2007). One true aspect, however, is that there are planes in the current market and others at different stages of development with features that are very close to those being described as features of the VLJ’s.

In general, VLJ’s are expected to greatly affect, if not completely, alter the shape of the aviation industry as we know it today (Aviation Today, 2007). All aviation from customers, airline companies, aircraft manufacturers, traffic controllers and regulation bodies, among others, will feel the impact of VLJ’s introduction into aviation (GAO, 2007). As it will become clearer here, there is a need for restructuring on the part of all players in the aviation industry. That restructuring should be tailored to accommodate VLJ’s, as well as address the challenges that will result from their entry into air travel.

It is obvious that most of the VLJ characteristics are ideal for and will indeed encourage private ownership. This is particularly true because of a relatively low market price, versatility and potentially low maintenance costs. In addition to these cost-saving features, VLJ’s have been built with the latest technologies, incorporating automation and many other tools ideal for small and large business activities (Kearns, 2009).

A good portion of the population, as well as corporations and organizations, will likely buy these fleets. One result of such a change may be the potential loss of a substantial portion of the air travel market for the major airline companies (Hansman et al., 2006). Many of these companies have already been restructuring their services in anticipation of the changes that may occur in the aviation market from the broad introduction of VLJ’s in the future/over time.

To overcome and mitigate these changes, many airline companies are laying down their own plans for incorporating VLJ’s into their service. The taxi travel model is an important service that is now becoming incorporated into airline services. The air taxi model of travel would map taxi services offered on road transport, whereby travelers can randomly choose destinations at their convenience to air travel (Straus, 2005).

Travel services provided by airlines through commercial jets have held a few disadvantages over time, the main one being that the service is not individually tailored to the lifestyles of passengers. Passengers have to travel within pre-arranged timelines that have little to do with their own planning. VLJ’s are poised to allow a taxi kind of travel where customers can choose to travel at their own convenience and schedule (Sara, 2006). This air taxi model of transport will be especially helpful to those businessmen and professionals who must travel frequently between destinations (Straus, 2005).

Blink is one of several companies that intend to introduce taxi air travel in the aviation market (Alcock, 2008). The company has already bought at least 45 mustang type VLJ’s for the taxi service (Bonnefoy, 2007). According to research done by one of the company’s founders-Peter Leiman, VLJ’s will save more than 25% of current charter air travel costs (Alcock, 2008). Also, the average number of passengers per charter travels is only 2.3 individuals- making VLJ’s again an ideal option (Bonnefoy, 2007). The use of VLJ’s would more efficiently use resources and significantly reduce the travel costs associated with charter travel (Alcock, 2008). Blink Company has stated that their taxi travel costs for customers are at the very least half of what can otherwise be found in the charter travel market (Alcock, 2008).

To acquire customers, Blink has targeted corporations that normally transport their workers within Europe and between locations that are not effectively accommodated by existing scheduled flights (Alcock, 2008). For example, there is an information technology company centered in Southern England. This company frequently airlifts its workers to meetings in France and Ireland (Aviation Today, 2007). None of these destinations are served by direct commercial flights.

The company (Blink) intends to build a network of at least one hundred destinations within Europe (Alcock, 2008). In the process of creating these networks, the company will be charging negotiated rates depending on the network (Aviation Today, 2007). Once its network is fully stable, the company will allow more flexibility where customers can randomly travel within those destinations (Aviation Today, 2007).

VLJ’s will definitely introduce some control challenges in the general aviation industry. Control of traffic is a major challenge. A likely scenario will be a significant increase in traffic travel, fed by an appetite for VLJ’s from individuals, corporations, and airlines. Another traffic control challenge that will be caused by the entry of VLJ’s into the aviation market will arise from their low cruise speeds (less than 390 knots) when compared to their commercial jet counterparts (over 400 knots) (Hansman, 2006). This variation in speed suggests that the air traffic for very light jets will have to be integrated into the air traffic of faster planes traveling at higher speeds (Hansman, 2006).

This issue will lead to speed conflicts where VLJ’s will be overtaken by other planes that do travel faster (Hansman, 2006). A research analysis done by MIT students showed that VLJ’s are likely to be limited to flying at a height of no more than 29,000 feet to minimize such speed conflicts (Hansman, 2006). Terminal areas are likely to experience the maximum conflict in this regard, especially because VLJ’s will fly small distance routes (Bonnefoy, 2007). Although these planes are expected to operate mainly between small airports, potentially limiting increased congestion in big airports, they will likely also contribute to more traffic congestion in that space-manly because commercial gets will be flying at lower altitudes around cities (many airports are located around cities). (Bonnefoy, 2007).

One aspect that has defined air travel in recent years is terrorism (GAO, 2007). Many airports have incorporated complex systems and measures to mitigate the threat and prevent another terrorism attack like that occurred on 9/11. One way of looking at the potential impact of VLJ’s in this area of concern is to assume that an increase in air traffic will likely lead to an increase in aviation terrorism. Several of the features of VLJ’s could also lead to an increase in air traffic terrorism potential. Looking at the issue from the opposite point of view, however, it could be argued that VLJ’s can reduce the danger of terrorism in air travel.

The small number of passengers in a VLJ will be easier to monitor (Straus, 2005) The tailoring of travel services to be more individually based will let airline companies offer taxi air travel and obtain complete data profiles of their customers and thus track their activities more precisely than airlines can, with hundreds of passengers a day passing through large terminals. Also there would be fewer long delays with less screening or quicker screening required

In recent years, the infrastructural needs of the aviation industry have increased as a result of new challenges like terrorism, the need to employ a better/tighter infrastructure that incorporates recent technologies, and the need for greater income/ profits (Straus, 2005). There has also been the challenge of dealing with ever- increasing air traffic contributed mostly by private planes. Entry of VLJ’s into the aviation market will add to that already existing traffic challenge problem. There will therefore be a greater need for review and control of air traffic by traffic regulators.

Airline companies are already paying very high taxes to sustain and develop the aviation infrastructure (GAO, 2007), albeit that their contribution to air traffic is lower now than that of private planes (GAO, 2007). It is expected that the airlines companies will push for private planes to contribute a greater share of those taxes paid, especially toward expanding the necessary infrastructure (GAO, 2007). However, the FAA estimates that VLJ’s will significantly increase the amount of revenue that the government, regulation bodies and airports collects from general aviation. Increased revenues are also expected from increased passenger loads generated by VLJ’s (Aviation Today, 2007).

More taxes will also be collected from taxes charged on traveler tickets and fuel taxes (GAO, 2007). Yet even with the collection of greater revenues, it remains important to weigh the value of those revenues against the extra need that will be created in the aviation sector by greater use of VLJ’s, mainly because of the expected expansion in infrastructural needs in general aviation brought about by VLJ’s.

The fees charged by airports are also likely to increase, as they strive to provide enough required resources to handle increased traffic activities at their bases. Airports located in metropolitan locations will see a significant increase in air traffic as a result of VLJ’s (Hansman, 2006). Some of these airports will even reach their elastic limits, such as Teteboro in New York, which is already showing signs of reaching that limit (Hansman, 2006). Airports around metropolitan areas will become more significant, as they accommodate increased traffic (Hansman, 2006). In general, increased traffic from VLJ’s will lead to an increase in activity at most airports; including those located farther from metropolitan areas.

The major challenge will be to increase the capacity of airports to handle VLJ’s (Aviation Today, 2007). Construction of numerous small airports to handle the taxi model of travel introduced by VLJ’s will become a necessity. Since this construction may prove difficult to implement in some areas, the ability of VLJ’s to completely integrate into the aviation market will remain, for the time being at least, more limited. Among other obstacles that may limit that endeavor are the unavailability of land and challenges in revenue collection due to limited contributions by private planes (Aviation Today, 2007).

Apart from affecting the physical infrastructure like airports, VLJ’s will also impact human resources in general aviation. With the expected increase in aviation activity, job opportunities may open in an expanding aviation industry (Cobb, 2005). Service providers will need to provide special training for pilots and the other crew needed to operate VLJ’s. Even private VLJ owners will require the services of professionals, such as pilots, to travel as often as they would like (Cobb, 2005).

The unique characteristics of VLJ’s when compared to existing planes will force existing training institutions in aviation to adjust their training to accommodate VLJ’s. Already the FAA is developing a computer program that will allow simulation processes that train and update current VLJ staff (GAO, 2007). In general, It Is important for all aviation parties and regulatory bodies to establish and maintain the highest standards for training of VLJ staff and especially the pilots of these new jets, so as to maintain current safety standards and appropriate professionalism.

The package of services offered to the market for VLJ’s varies in some ways from the services currently being offered. For example, because of their small size, current VLJ models do not accommodate private showers and other comforts normally offered in business class by commercial jets (Private Jet Solutions, 2010).

This is ironic, considering that VLJ’s currently target business corporations, who do treasure such amenities while traveling. VLJ’s are designed to travel mostly small mileage ranges, however. As a positive potential, however, VLJ’s will be able to offer more individually oriented services where customers can travel randomly at their personal convenience, unlike having to travel on scheduled flights (Straus, 2005). Although VLJ’s will likely offer new, different, and even better travel experiences to their group of customers, the relevance of traditional commercial jets is likely to remain for some situations/circumstances and certain types of air travelers for a long time to come.

The introduction of VLJ’s into the aviation market has presented challenges to aviation travel as well as opportunities for aircraft manufacturing companies (Straus, 2005). Traditionally, even before the introduction of VLJ’s, private planes occupied a special and substantial niche in the aircraft market (Hawkins, 2008). Those companies that have focused their efforts on developing unique VLJ’s with desirable features for the customer will carve for themselves a considerable size of the increasing future VLJ market (Hawkins, 2008). There is, however, a need for concerned regulation parties to ensure that all VLJ’s that are manufactured undergo rigorous safety tests and meet expected safety standards now applicable to the aviation industry (Straus, 2005).

Due to these different challenges, some of which include unavailability of necessary infrastructure, marketing challenges, inability to offer certain services, , delayed planning by FAA and other bodies to accommodate VLJ’s, challenges in the design and production of VLJ’s, the complete integration of VLJ’s into general aviation has been delayed (Hojong, 2007). Even the taxi model of travel has not gained a foothold in the market as yet (Sara, 2006). Although VLJ’s have been projected to alter aviation industry as we know it, that change has not happened yet or at least as soon as was expected to by many aviation and travel experts (Hojong, 2007). One prediction is clear, however. Their numbers (VLJ’s) will keep increasing. Many companies that are manufacturing VLJ’s now have a backlog of orders (Starsfield, 2007).

VLJ’s have been able to enter the aviation market because of their unique features and their utilization of new technologies. Current owners of private aircraft will want to try out VLJ’s to replace their old aircraft (Cobb, 2005). Many people are increasingly buying VLJ’s because of their low price when compared to other types of private planes on the market (Cobb, 2005). According to the FAA, more than five thousand VLJ’s will be flying in American air space by 2017.

Apart from their affordable price, an important feature of VLJ’s that is likely to place them in a better position in the marketplace is low maintenance costs. Costs associated with air travel include insurance costs, repair and replacement of parts, and fuel costs. When compared with other aircraft, these costs are significantly lower for VLJ’s (Starsfield, 2007). For example, the cost of operation for the Eclipse 500 VLJ is only about $372 per hour (Private Jet Solutions, 2010). Compare this figure with the average cost associated with operating the Hawker 400XP at about $1,447 an hour (Private Jet Solutions, 2010). The VLJ economic potential will be its main advantage, as they integrate fully into the general aviation market.

Conclusion

The ongoing/future incorporation of VLJ’s into the general aviation market has been projected by some aviation experts and Bodies such as FAA to alter the aviation industry in several significant ways. That significance includes the uniqueness of VLJ’s for traveling, their affordability as aircraft, and their relatively low maintenance costs. Some of this implementation has already occurred, as airline companies and other relevant players in aviation have strategized in order to remain relevant in an aviation market being impacted more greatly by VLJ’s. For example, airline companies have started to implement taxi air travel services that tailor to meet the individual needs of their customers. Several challenges, however, have delayed the full integration of VLJ’s into the aviation industry. Some of these challenges include unavailability of necessary infrastructure, marketing challenges, inability to offer certain services, delayed planning by FAA and other bodies to accommodate VLJ’s

Reference List

Alcock, C. (2008). UK air taxi ready for ‘the vlj revolution’. Web.

Aviation Today. (2007). GAO reins in vlj forecasts. Web.

Bonnefoy, A.P. (2007). Potential impacts of very light jets on the national aerospace system. Journal of Aircraft, 44, 1318-1326. Web.

Cobb, R. (2005). Business jets. Academy Management Journal, 4(32), 9-10. Web.

GAO. (2007). Very light jets: Several factors could Influence their effect on national aerospace system. Web.

Hansman, R.J, & Bonnefoy P. (2006) Investigation of the potential Impacts of the entry of very light jets in the national aerospace system. London: McMillan.

Hawkins, C.J. (2008). Inclusion of emerging technologies in the far 147 classroom. Aviation 30, 2, 4-7. Web.

Hojong, B. (2007) Forecasting model for air taxi, commercial airline, automobile demand in the United States. Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2055, 9-20. Web.

Kearns, S, (2009). Canadian aviation. Ontario: Kendall Hunt Publishers.

Mini jets: Why all the hype? (2010). Web.

Sara, B. (2006). Very light jets creating a demand for composites. High Performance Composites, 14, 34-38. Web.

Starsfield, K. (2007). Europe’s promise: Very light jets. New York: McMillan.

Straus, B. (2005). Crandall: VLJ charters ‘Irrelevant’ to airlines. Web.

Introduction

According to the “Travel Dictionary” (2010), fuel hedging is defined as “the practice, often employed by airline companies, of making advance purchase of fuel at a fixed price for future delivery to protect against the shock of anticipated rises in prices” (Para 1). Fuel hedging is among the strategies that are employed by airline companies for them to protect themselves from the anticipation of an increase in the price of ‘jet fuel”. According to Anonymous (Fuel hedging, 2008), “hedging has been described as everything from gambling to buying insurance” (Paragraph 2).

A large number of “International air carriers”, just in the same manner as the rest of the members in the transport sector, engage in fuel hedging with the main reason of insulating themselves against the prices which are often unpredictable. In this paper, there is going to be gaining fundamental insight into the “significance of fuel costs” for the airline companies and the reasons why companies engage in fuel hedging and what motives they have for hedging and why some companies benefit from hedging while others make losses.

Aviation Fuel Hedging

Among the main “cost drivers” in the aviation industry is the “purchased jet fuel” that is required for the operations of the airlines. AS Kling (2008) points out “the contribution to the operation cost of airlines varies widely with market prices for fuel and other influences, but is quoted mostly between 20% and 40% and thus a considerable share of total operating costs”. Regarding overall costs for the entire company, Morrell and Swan (2006) point out that “fuel costs are about 15% of the total costs when oil is near $25/barrel” (Page 723). Philips (2003) points out that in 2003, Southwest had oil accounting for 15% of the overall “airline cost of the US carrier”.

As on one hand consideration is made of the operating costs of the airlines as being the main part, on the other hand, it is pointed out by Kling (2008) that “the greatest lever for reducing cost lies within operations itself by measurements of reducing consumption and only to a very small extend within market instruments: (Page 16). There is a limitation in the efforts that are carried out to engage in passing on of varying degrees of the costs of fuel to the clients as surcharges because of the “price elasticity of demand” and also due to the legal precincts.

Having engaged in exploring to establish that there is an importance of the fuel costs to the airline companies, there comes up a question as to whether or not fuel hedging is of any benefit in whatever way. An emphasis is put by Morrell and Swann (2006) that bringing down the level of unpredictability in prices translates to bring down the level of the “risk exposure” and this results in ‘the higher estimation of the airline’s value as a reward to investors” (Page 724).

Morrell and Swann (2006) as well point out that there can not be having the aim of bringing down the level of the costs of fuel in the long run by hedging. In practice, it is indicated that among the airline companies, some tend to follow this objective by way of a more aggressive “fuel trading policy” resulting in a higher chance of acquiring benefits but not bringing down the level of “risk exposure” that is the major aim of hedging.

In practice, there is an indication of various approaches. An initial overview of these approaches can be obtained through carrying out the differentiation of 3 market dimensions as well as the quantity and instruments. Since crude oil is as well the “chemical basis” and can act as basic to the “jet fuel”, most of the hedging carriers put the hedges they have against “the movement of the crude oil price” (Kling, 2008). The financial instruments market on the fuel is greatly not liquid to a level to “hedge against the full consumption” (Kling 2008). Yet there can be classified of the carriers in terms of whether or not they engage in hedging “the differential between crude and jet fuel” or whether or not these carriers concentrate on the “crude market” (Kling, 2008).

The “consumption coverage level” gives room for placing carriers into a “contingency context” and this is dependent on the level of the consumption they have that is hedged for which time period into the future. In the current days, the hedging airlines that have achieved success to a great level employ what is referred to as “rolling hedging strategy”. In this strategy, the consumption in the near future is hedged to a greater level in comparison with the future dates that are far. In general terms, there will be putting in place the “hedging policy” by an airline company in regard to the rules that have to be followed to make a choice of which instruments to be employed.

In relative terms, the concept of fuel hedging is not an old concept. This concept started in the course of the 1990s. According to Kling (2008) “instruments can be divided into options which grant the rights to buy or sell at a specified time without obligation to draw the fight to buy futures that lock in the price of a future trade” (Page 17). Employing futures in hedging can bring about direct losses if the level of prices goes down and at the same time a “call option” will prevent losses resulting from the decreasing prices at the time there is no execution of the option. Therefore, Kling (2008) concludes that “options are traded at a sometimes considerable premium the counterparty charges for taking over the full price risk” (Page 17). This implies that an airline company engages in “betting on the price” to remain in this band.

According to Anonymous (United may not be alone with fuel hedge losses, 2008) “Southwest Airlines” who are regarded on an international level as being a benchmark in regard to “fuel hedges” was reported to have derived a gain of over three billion US dollars resulting from hedging beginning from the year 1999 to the year 2008. In the course of the same period, there was an increase in the “crude oil prices” and at this time, hedging was enhanced by the “market conditions”. Anonymous (Fuel hedging, 2008) reports that not in a similar manner as Southwest, other local airlines have not been very much “aggressive at hedging” and as a result of this, these companies are paying prices that are higher.

Anonymous (Fuel hedging, 2008) further reports that “Delta only hedged 27% of its first-quarter fuel consumption, while United hedged 30%, and continental hedged just 22%, leaving them particularly exposed to the higher prices of jet fuel” (Para 4). Consequently, Southwest paid 1.98 US dollars/gallon at still at the same period United was paying almost double the amount (3.02 US dollars/gallon). United Airlines is said to have made losses of more than a half a billion US dollars in the year 2008 alone. Another company that is reported to have made losses is Delta. This company made a loss of 108 million US dollars in the year 2007. More so, Continental was also reported to have lost over 18 million in the first quarter of 2007 from hedging (Anonymous: Hedging, 2008).

The benefits and losses that result as indicated above imply that hedging can be of benefit just for “smoothening out the cost structure in the time, where there will be an overall reduction in the unpredictability of the price but temporary gains will be evened out by similar losses as most airline trading policies explicitly recognize” (Kling, 2008, Pg 17). The critical question that comes up for airline companies which follow the “classical hedge-to-minimize-risk” approach is thus supposed to be whether or not bringing down the level of volatility is given a reward by the “stock market as an increase of the company value” (Kling, 2008).

Since exposure to oil prices unpredictability is not a risk that is specific to any company, it is assumed that the investors would be in a position to obtain a portfolio that is efficient by themselves through the development of “counterpositions” to that particular risk. They can carry out this, for example as pointed out by Morrell and Swan (2006) by “buying positions of refineries or oil-producing companies or by accumulating adequate hedging instruments themselves” (Page 725). Morrell and Swann further point out that, to this point, there is no need, in theoretical terms, for an airline company that has enough liquidity to engage in hedging.

Kling (2008) observes that the opposing position arising with a “reality check” is that “the underlying theory behind this hypothesis – the CAPM – is not very strong in the real world due to the costs of information gathering and the economies of scale connected with hedging operations” (Page 17). A point is added by Morrell and Swan (2006) by putting “oils prices movements” into two classes. These classes are “demand drive price movements” and “supply-driven price movements”. They put forth a strong position that “hedging will smooth out only supply-driven oil price changes while turning demand-driven changes even higher” (Page 725)

Conclusion

The objective of the airline companies engaging in hedging is to them to protect themselves from the anticipation of an increase in the price of ‘jet fuel”. Some of the companies such as Southwest airlines have been successful in hedging and they have been able to derive benefits from this. On the other hand, some companies in the industry have not been successful in fuel hedging and they have ended up making losses. Such companies include Delta and United among others.

At the present, the airline companies which engage in hedging that have been successful to a higher level are the ones that use a strategy in which the consumption on the days that are not far in the future is hedged to a level that is higher as compared to the level of hedging to the days that are far in the future. These companies engage in hedging using a more aggressive “fuel trading policy” and this enables them to have higher chances of getting benefits.

References

Anonymous, (2008). Fuel Hedging. Web.

Anonymous, (2008). United may not be alone with fuel hedge losses. Associated Press. Web.

Kling, M. V. (2008). Fuel hedging in the airline sector. Transfer, No. 38.

Morrell, P. and Swan, W. (2006). Airline fuel hedging: Theory and Practice. Transport Reviews, Vol. 26 No. 6.

Phillips, E. H. (2003). Southwest stays in black. Aviation Week & Space Technology, Vol. 158, No. 17.