Category: Aviation

Short N.2B seaplane (1917)

Short N.2B seaplane was first launched in December 1917 during the First World War in the Rochester manufacturers also known as the Short Bros Ltd in Britain. Francis Webber who was being supervised by Oswald Short designed the first seaplane which was tested at Marine experimental aircraft deport. The Short N.2B was designed as a way of outdoing the Wight Converted Seaplane and the Fairey, which were in the market during the 1917s. During its design, Oswald wanted to use the Rolls-Royce Eagles engine, which the other planes used, but it was not possible due to the shortage of the engines in the market. The Short N.2B prototypes used the Sunbeam Maori I engine of 260hp (Bruce 1957).

The Short N.2B was therefore designed with one 260hp Sunbeam Maori I engine, which was cowled fully with the cooling louvers together with a frontal radiator. The first two completed seaplanes with the Maori engine did not prove to be any better than the Short type 184 which it was supposed to replace. The two seaplanes had two-bay biplane, two-seat, and two main floats. The seaplane was 40 feet 2 inches lengthwise and its height was 13 feet and 9 inches. When empty the plane weighs 1,481 kg and when loaded it weighs 2,232kg meaning it could carry many weapons (Barnes 1967).

I preferred the Short N.2B because of the size of its wings where the wing area was 63.0-meter square, a wing space of 55feet and 2 inches, which is equal to 16.82 meters, and a wing loading of 35.4 kilograms per square meter (Mason 1994).

V-1 flying bomb (1994)

The V-1 flying bomb was also known as the Vergeltungswaffe eins, buzz bomb, or the anti-aircraft was launched during the First World War to compete with the V-2, which was costly as compared to the V-1 flying bomb. Dipl-Ing Robert of Fieseler designed the airframe of the V-1 flying bomb under the guidance system of Siemens. This prototype was later manufactured by other factories like the Mittelwerke, Henschel, and Volkswagen. The flying bomb was first tested in 1943 and was later launched by Reichsmarschall Hermann during Christmas Eve of 1942 and later Wachtel Max engaged his armies in firing the bombs against England (Holsken 1994).

The launch crew of the V-1 would load aviation fuel into the tanks after which it had to attach the wings of the flying bomb to the fuselage. The crew could also load the flying bomb on the launch ramp and it had to attach the catapult properly to the missile before launch. The flying bomb flew 3,000 feet in its normal state at 400 miles per hour and this was its maximum speed. The controlling surfaces deflect by tipping the missile downwards facing the earth and this could happen when the bomb had attained the range that was set. This caused the choking of the engine hence its quit (Neufeld 1995).

The pulse jet engine of the V-1 flying bomb is one of the features that were easily noticed due to its physical and audible characteristics. The engine always provided the force that thrust the bomb propelling it to the targeted direction. The pulse jet engine was placed outside the fuselage and above the tail of the plane. When the engine could start, the flaps opened up allowing the air into the combustion chamber hence mixing with the fuel. This combustion process made the engine to produce the duv-duv-duv- sound (Maj C.R. 1945).

I preferred the V-1 flying bomb because of its simple jet engine, which could accelerate the speed of the flying bomb up to 400 mph. The position and size of the wings were also good as it enabled the easy and faster movement to allow air into the engine.

Vickers valiant BMK.1 (1955)

The Vickers valiant first known as the Canberra was established during the First World War by the royal army in Britain. The V-valiant had its origin in 1944 as a high-speed bomber in high attitudes without any defensive armament. The English electric is the company that was appointed to develop the V-valiant. The Canberra was first designed as a twin-engine flying bomber, which was an imitation of the two fuselage-mounted engines of the Metrovick F.2/4, which made the authorities doubt its efficiency since the two fuselages mounted engine operated in low altitude while the Canberra was meant to operate in high altitudes (Buttler 2005).

Sir George Nelson who was the chairperson of the English Electrical company first launched the Canberra. The Canberra was therefore designed in a simple way, which resembled a Gloster meteor scaled-up with a wing. The fuselage had circular tapering at both ends as the cockpit was placed aside in such a way that it had no protrusions and the wings were separated with the tubular engine. The Canberra was jet-powered just like the V-1 flying bomb though its shape was more of a mosquito mold hence increasing the capacity to load more bombs and therefore able to fit the two most powerful engines in a compatible and aerodynamic way (Beamont 1996).

I preferred this kind of aircraft because of its size and the type of engine is used. The engines of the Canberra were powerful in that they were of the Avon R.A.3s, and they could propel the movement of the flying bomb at a speed of 871 kilometers per hour. It had a service ceiling of 14, 600 meters, and could carry weapons weighing 3.6 tonnes. The design and size of its wings were also appealing since it gave it a better shape. The tanks, which were shaped like a teardrop, were placed under the wingtips where they fitted perfectly (Buttler 2005).

English electric lighting F.MK (1960)

The English electric lighting is one of the supersonic aircraft that was designed and manufactured in Britain. This was the first single-seat fighter that was manufactured in Britain and it was in operation for more than 25 years without any failure in its performance. It is therefore one of the aircraft that many pilots enjoyed flying though in its development some complications affected its exportation greatly. Its design started in 1948 after the cancellation of Bell X-01 in 1947. W.E.W Petter who was the chief designer of the English Electric company designed it in May 1949 (Bowman 1997).

The aircraft had two engines, which were housed in the fuselage where one was placed on top of the other. The lower engine was placed beneath the wing box structure, which was at the center as the other engine was placed just behind the wing. This kind of arrangement consumed the larger position of the fuselage whereby the jet pipes and the intake ducting took up the larger volume leaving very little space for fuel. The wing of the electric lighting was designed in such a manner that it served as a tank since there were no other separate bag tanks. During the wind tunnel tests, the design of the aircraft proved to be promising (Lake 2006).

During its development, the designer made changes after each test to ensure that the required features were attained. Due to such kind of changes, the aircraft remained in operation throughout the years without being canceled even when other fighter bombs were canceled from the operation. For example, when Duncan Sandys the defense minister canceled the operation of most fighters the English electric had already been developed in such a way that in the upper nose there were two Aden guns and a bulged ventral hence providing more room to accommodate another fuel tank. The WG760 was later fitted together with an afterburner, which looked simple, and during its test, it could reach a speed of Mach 1.53 (Lake 1997).

I, therefore, like the English electric because of the way the Avon 210 engines were arranged and fitted with a fully reheat system. The fuselage was also modified in a better way that the cockpit was raised and this gave an all-around overview for the pilot. The size and position of the wings were also good because they gave the aircraft a better look ((Lake 2006).

The Schempp-Hirth Cirrus (1973)

The Schempp-Hirth was initially founded as the Astir in 1970 and later developed as an offspring of Grob Maschinenfabrik in 1971 and 1975; it was developed under the license of Schempp-Hirth. The construction of the Schempp-Hirth began in 1973 and its first flight took place in December 1974. The Schempp-Hirth was designed by a group of engineers under the supervision of Professor Richard Eppler. The aircraft was therefore designed in such a manner that its wing featured a high area of 12.4 square meters, which seemed unusual. Its design partly featured the characteristics of the Eppler 603 profile. It, therefore, had a high speed, which was optimized though with the controlling characteristics of low speed (Arnold and Eaker 1986).

Wolf Hirth and Joan Price first flew the Schempp-Hirth during the National British contest in 1985. The wing sweep that had the design of the Eppler design was later rejected and this led to its redesigning by enlarging the canopies. The Schempp-Hirth was designed with a long fuselage with an improved layout of the cockpit and some features of weight saving. The wings were later reduced and its elastic flap was the unique feature in it. The fuselage was later redesigned to one canopy to reduce the drag. Its wing loading was 31.49 kilograms per square meter and the aircraft had a gross weight of 570 kilograms (Buttler 2005).

I preferred the Schempp-Hirth 1973 because of its design that had a Revmaster engine and its landing gear, which was semi-retractable, and the way the two seats were placed side-by-side. Its approach control was guided by the surface brakes, which were placed at both the top and the bottom. The Schempp-Hirth had a pusher propeller of two blades that were of a Hoffmann. I also liked its size since it covered an area of 18.10 square meters (Arnold and Eaker 1986).

References

Aeroflight Company, 2012, English electric lightning. Web.

Arnold, H & Eaker, I 1986, This flying game, 2nd ed, Funk and Wagnalls, New York.

Barnes, C 1967, Shorts aircraft since 1900, Putnam, London.

Beaumont, R 1996, Flying to the Limit, Patrick Stevens Ltd, Somerset.

Bowman, M 1997, English electric lightning, The Crowood Press Ltd, Wiltshire.

Bruce, J 1957, British airplanes 1914-18, Putnam, London.

Buttler, T 2005, British secret projects, Jet fighters since 1950, Midland Publishing, Hinckley.

Hosken, D 1994, V-missiles of the Third Reich, the V-1 and V-2, Monogram Aviation Publications, Massachusetts.

Lake, J 1997, English electric lightning. Wings of Fame, vol. 7, pp. 36-101.

Lake, J 2006, Aircraft profile  English electric lightning  Part Three, Air International. vol. 70 no. 3, pp. 6466.

Maj W 1945, V-weapons (crossbow) campaign, US Strategic Bombing Survey, vol.9 no. 24.

Mason, F 1994, The British bomber since 1914, Putnam, London.

Neufeld, M 1995, The Rocket and the Reich, The Free Press, New York.

Appendix

Figure 1 Short N.2B Seaplane.

Figure 2. V-1 Flying Bomb.

Figure 3. Vickers Valiant.

Figure 4. English Electric Lightning.

Figure 5. Schempp-Hirth Cirrus.

Starting from the Middle Ages and until the end of the XIX century attempts were made in different countries to create heavier-than-air aircraft. In 1903, a documented attempt to fly an airplane built by two talented and purposeful Americans, the brothers Wilbur and Orville Wright, was crowned with success (Petrescu et al., 31). The first flight of the younger brother, Orville, which lasted for 12 years, at a distance of 120 feet near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, went down in the history of world aviation.

At the beginning of the last century, the creation of heavierthanair aircraft in European countries quickly led to the front of aviation for air transportation between them and their distant colonies. The first American passenger on the plane was Charles Furnas on a flight with Orville Wright in 1908 (Petrescu et al., 32). There are no natural obstacles on the territory of the United States, for overcoming which the newly appeared airplanes could be used. During the first two decades of the last century, their use as a means of transport was not considered a severe type of economic activity. Many ordinary people were wary of the possibility of flying as passengers of newly appeared flying machines. At the same time, successful attempts to use aircraft as vehicles were still carried out in the United States. The most far-sighted people did not doubt that air transportation would eventually become a common type of business activity.

The First World War had a significant impact on the development of aviation on both sides of the Atlantic. Encouraged by the military districts, the development of powerful aircraft engines made it possible to produce airplanes that could take more people or cargo on board and fly much faster than pre-war ones. The war harmed the development of peaceful, commercial use of aviation. Efforts to develop and produce aviation equipment were mainly aimed at creating military-purpose airplanes. The population began to associate flying cars with bombing and air battles. The surplus of planes after the war was so great that for several years there was almost no need to create new aircraft equipment, as a result of which many aircraft production facilities suffered an economic collapse. After the end of the war, the US government supported the development of commercial aviation, but this had nothing to do with the air transportation of people.

The end of the First World War confirmed the opinion in the ruling circles that a level had been reached in aircraft construction that allowed this type of equipment to find the transportation of mail by air. The first attempts to transport airmail to the United States were made several years earlier (Petrescu et al., 33). As soon as the viability of air mail transportation became apparent, the government decided to transfer mail transportation to private companies competitively.

In conclusion, aviation in the United States has become one of the most actively developing and thriving industries. In any country, the level of development of civil aviation is essential, at least due to the following three factors. First, it reflects the countrys achieved indicator of technological and economic development. Second, citizens quality of life is determined, along with other factors, by the possibility and accessibility of using civil aviation for air transportation inside and outside the country, as well as for other economic, economic, cultural, sports, and other purposes.

Work Cited

Petrescu, Relly, Aversa, Raffaella, Akash, Bilal, Bucinell, Ronald, Corchado, Juan, Apicella, Antonio, Tiberiu, Florian and Petrescu, Tiberiu. History of Aviation: A Short Review. Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, vol.1, no.1, pp.30-49.

Short N.2B Seaplane (1917)

Short N.2B was designed and produced by Short Bros Ltd. It was planned as the improved version of those seaplanes which were used during World War I. However, Short N.2B was presented only in 1917. Short N.2B was worked out as a powerful patrol bomber seaplane with one engine, two-bay wings, and two seats (Barnes 1967). According to the military characteristics, Short N.2B could use one 7.7mm machine-gun and two 100kg bombs which were carried under its fuselage. Moreover, Short N.2B Seaplanes wingspan was 16.81 meters, length of 12.24 meters, and height 4.19 meters (Short N.2B).

It is interesting that initially, the manufacturers planned to use the Rolls-Royce Eagle engine. Nevertheless, it was ordered to use 260hp Sunbeam Maori I water-cooled in-line engine for the project of Short N.2B (Barnes 1967). Its engine and speed of 148 km/h were considered as the advantages of the seaplane (Short N.2B). However, the technical characteristics of Short N.2B Seaplane were checked only in 1918 (Barnes 1967).

When the manufacturers had analyzed the results of the test flights they decided to improve the project because the characteristics of Short N.2B were just the same as of the first versions of Shorts Seaplanes (Barnes 1967). Initially, there were developed two variants of the project. They were N66 and N67 (Short N.2B). The producers worked out the necessary improvements to Short N.2B Seaplane according to the results of their testing.

They saw the main problem of the seaplane in its not powerful engine (Barnes 1967). The next version was produced with the Rolls-Royce Eagle engine. However, the technical characteristics of the seaplane remained as they were in the previous model. Thus, there was no necessity in the further development of the project, and later Short N.2B Seaplane and its variations were mostly used for the researches and investigations of the designers and manufacturers in Britain (Barnes 1967).

Short N.2B is worth our proper examination because of the unique history of its creation. It was designed as a powerful patrol bomber. However, there was no opportunity to check its possibilities during military actions because of the constant process of the improvement of its technical characteristics. The study of the peculiarities of this seaplane gives us the chance to concentrate on the challenges of seaplane-producing in the period after World War I.

V-1 Flying Bomb (1944)

The V-1 can be considered as one of the most powerful bombs of this type in World War II which was designed by Robert Lusser and produced by Fieseler for the needs of Nazi Germany. The V-1 was a pilotless monoplane that was powered by a pulse-jet motor and carried a one-ton warhead (V-1 Flying Bombs). The appearance of this bomb on the war arena in 1944 had a great impact on the course of the military actions.

V-1 Flying Bombs were mostly created for the German attacks which were directed toward London. Thus, the V-1 was launched from a fixed ramp and traveled at about 350mph and 4,000ft and had a range of 150 miles (240km). It was 8 meters (25 feet) long and had a wingspan of about 5.5 meters (20 feet) (V-1 Flying Bombs). These characteristics of the V-1 Flying Bomb were the results of the process of a constant improvement of the project.

The first variant of the V-1 was planned with two engines. However, Robert Lusser developed the project, and now the V-1 had only one engine (V-1 Flying Bombs). The manufacturers used Argus As a 109-014 pulse jet engine for producing an effective flying bomb (V-1 Flying Bombs). To test the effectiveness of the V-1, there were worked out some first variants of the bomb. The designers and manufacturers were improving the technical characteristics of the V-1 and the possible tactics of its use according to the data of these tests during 1944-1945 (V1 Flying Bomb).

To have the opportunity to attack London and its suburbs successfully, Germany launched its new weapon from Pas-de-Calais on the northern coast of France (V-1 Flying Bombs). These attempts were taken in June of 1944 by Luftwaffe. The first ten attempts were not effective. However, the next ones gave their results. These attacks created panic in Britain and between mid-June and the end of July; around one and a half million people left London (V-1 Flying Bombs).

Moreover, the V-1 was capable of killing large numbers of people, inflicting terrible injuries and causing huge material damage to buildings and homes (V1 Flying Bomb). Even though the whole number of people who were killed by the V-1 was more than 6,000, by August only 20 percent of these bombs were reaching England (V1 Flying Bomb). Thus, the damage caused by these flying bombs was considerable.

The history of the development and use of V-1 Flying Bombs is worth examining because of the effects which were provided by the use of the V-1 for the course of the military actions between Germany and England during World War II. These effects depend on the peculiarities of the technical characteristics of V-1 Flying Bombs. Moreover, the V-1 Flying Bomb is characterized by unusual exterior and remarkable technical characteristics.

Vickers Valiant B.Mk.1 (1955)

The series of Valiant bombers was worked out during the 1940-1950s by the Vickers-Armstrongs in Britain. The first of the RAFs V-class bombers, the Valiant flew for the first time on 18 May 1951 and entered service with No. 138 Squadron early in 1955 (Vickers Valiant). Vickers Valiant was produced as a strategic long-range medium bomber and three versions of it were presented. Three prototypes and 104 productions of the Valiant were built, the last of these being completed and flying on August 27, 1957 (Vickers Valiant).

The history of creating and improving the technical characteristics of Vickers Valiant is rather long. Thus, they were planned as main bombers which could present the nuclear force of the Royal Air Forces of Britain. However, they were developed greatly and their functions were changed. The first Valiant B.1 was produced at RAF Gaydon which was re-opened to be the first V-Force base after World War II (Vickers Valiant).

Thus, the first of the new V-Bombers, the Vickers Valiant, entered service with No. 138 Sqn at RAF Gaydon, Warwickshire in January 1955. 138 moved to RAF Wittering and became fully operational in July 1955 (Vickers Valiant). The process of working out the powerful bomber was not finished. New versions of the improved Vickers Valiant were presented in the next years (Jones 2007). The most important advantages of the Valiant are using four Rolls-Royce Avon 204 turbojets and its ability to carry a 10,000-lb. nuclear bomb internally and 21 1,000-Ib. bombs (Vickers Valiant).

The power of Vickers Valiant was tested during the Suez Crisis when the first Valiant of 138, 148, 207 and 214 squadrons were deployed to RAF Luqa in Malta (Vickers Valiant). Vickers Valiant was used as one of the most significant military forces which were involved in the conflict. The attacks began in October of 1956 when there were the first attempts to stop Egyptian and Israeli fighting around the Suez Canal (Vickers Valiant). These airfield attacks were no occurring, and they continued until 4 November, by which time the Egyptian Air Force had been decimated (Vickers Valiant).

Vickers Valiant produced by the Vickers-Armstrongs presented the most significant nuclear forces of the Royal Air Forces of Britain during the 1950-1960s. That is why the process of their working out and developing requires our proper consideration. These aircraft were rather unique in their technical characteristics in that period and affected the development of some more similar bombers.

English Electric Lightning F.Mk.1 (1960)

The most significant aircraft of the period of the Cold War was English Electric Lightning F.Mk.1. The only all-British supersonic aircraft to enter production, and the last all-British single-seat fighter, the English Electric Lightning defended United Kingdom air space for more than twenty-five years (English Electric Lightning). It was first designed and produced by English Electric which later became part of the British Aircraft Corporation (McLelland 2009).

The technical characteristics of English Electric Lightning F.Mk.1 are worth our examination. All the versions of English Electric Lightning were constantly developed by the manufactures to gain the highest technical qualities. However, almost canceled at one point, it suffered from chronic underdevelopment throughout much of its career and this adversely affected its export potential (English Electric Lightning).

The first aircraft of this series was produced in July of 1948 as the result of a long research process and of working out the plan and its definite design. It was known as Project 1 (McLelland 2009). The next versions were produced during the next some years. They were characterized by high-speed qualities. XM134 was the first full production Lightning F.Mk 1, making its first flight on 29 October 1959 (English Electric Lightning).

However, this version was also improved, and later the manufacturers presented their F. Mk 1A version served with Nos.51 and 111 Sqns (English Electric Lightning). The producers paid much attention to the improvement of the armament possibilities of the aircraft. Thus, the main advantages of English Electric Lightning F.Mk.1 are in such characteristics as using two engines of Rolls-Royce Avon 200R class, two 30 mm ADEN cannons, and Ferranti Al-23 radar (McLelland 2009).

English Electric Lightning F.Mk.1 was worked out for use by the Royal Arms Forces of Britain during the Cold War because of the threat of Russian bombers (McLelland 2009). Moreover, this aircraft was also widely used in numerous airshows. The latest variations of English Electric Lightning were used not only by the Royal Arms Forces of Britain but also by the Royal Saudi Air Force (McLelland 2009).

The history of developing the English Electric Lightning series and especially of English Electric Lightning F.Mk.1 is quite notable. This type of aircraft is prominent because of its high speed and remarkable metal exterior design which allows distinguishing it from the other aircraft successfully.

Schempp-Hirth Cirrus (1973)

Schempp-Hirth Cirrus is a great example of a glider that can be widely used for city needs. The most prominent variations of Schempp-Hirth Cirrus were produced during the period of 1970-1980s. Initially, Schempp-Hirth Cirrus was designed and built by Schempp-Hirth in Germany, and later it was produced according to the license in Yugoslavia (Schiff 2007).

The history of working out the glider and of its improvement is very long. Every year the manufacturers put some new modifications into the process of creating Schempp-Hirth Cirrus. The technical characteristics of Schempp-Hirth Cirrus are rather unique. The length of its wings firstly was planned as 17.74 meters, and in the next variations, this number was changed (Schiff 2007). Thus, the main advantages of Schempp-Hirth Cirrus models are in the improved wings, bigger airbrakes, and longer nose in comparison with the other projects (Hirschel, Prem and Madelung 2004).

The manufacturers also paid much attention to the development of Schempp-Hirth Cirruss tailplane (Schiff 2007). Moreover, Schempp-Hirth Cirrus was produced according to the standards of the first-class gliders. That is why it can be considered as the most comfortable variant for gliding in the sky of Europe with its mild climate (Schiff 2007). Its technical characteristics are as following: Schempp-Hirth Cirruss length is 7.20 meters, and its capacity is 98 kg water ballast. Furthermore, its rate of sink is 0.5 m/s, and there can be used airfoil FX 66-196/161 (Hirschel, Prem and Madelung 2004).

Schempp-Hirth Cirrus is very remarkable in its exterior with very long wings. Moreover, it can be characterized by quite notable technical qualities. It is also significant that despite the fact Schempp-Hirth Cirrus has a long history of its development its latest variations are still used for the city needs in Europe.

References

Barnes, C (1967) Shorts Aircraft since 1900. London, Putnam.

English Electric Lightning, n.d. Aeroflight. Web.

Hirschel, E, Prem, H, and Madelung, G (2004) Aeronautical research in Germany: from Lilienthal until today. New York, Springer.

Jones, B (2007) V-Bombers: Valiant, Vulcan, and Victor. Malborough, UK, Crowood Press.

McLelland, T (2009) English Electric Lightning: Britains first and last Supersonic Interceptor. Surrey, UK, Ian Allen Publishing.

Schiff, B (2007) Dream aircraft: the most fascinating airplanes Ive ever flown. The USA, Aviation Supplies and Academics, Inc.

Short N.2B, n.d. Virtual Aircraft Museum. Web.

Vickers Valiant, n.d. Aviation: the first 100 years. Web.

V1 Flying Bomb, n.d. FlyingBombsandRockets. Web.

V-1 Flying Bombs, n.d. Spartacus Educational. Web.

Executive Summary

The following report aims to observe and analyze the current functions of automation within the aviation industry. As such, the primary goal of the paper is to address the exact processes by which automation enhances or modifies the experience of pilots, flight attendants, and passengers through qualitative literature analysis. Using industry-relevant and academic literature, the study aims to categorize the various functions of automation and their advantages to the current operations within the industry. The report provides an analysis of the relevance and efficiency of these functions. Further, the paper will aim to find gaps in the current application of automation and potential approaches for future interventions in order to improve the presence of automation in the industry. Currently, available research suggests that automation functions promote safety through cohesion with human interference but interfaces are underdeveloped.

Introduction

Automation is one of the more novel facets of modern-day aviation. While many processes have been aided by automation throughout flights, the concept continues to evolve and appear within commercial travel. As such, automation in the field of aviation can be characterized as the use of multiple control systems and devices to improve flights and reduce the necessity of human interference. Air traffic control systems are one of the current areas which are undergoing a substantial adoption of automation (Meryeme et al., 2019). Similarly, the use of automation in cases of dangerous weather conditions frequently reduces the risks of air crashes and collisions.

This report aims to outline the facets of automation in aviation at present which includes the integration with human factors, pilot and computer interfaces, and flight management systems. Additionally, this work aims to explore the current known advantages and disadvantages of implementing automation in flights. Current academic research is also used to inform the potential trends and future developments of the concept within the field of aviation.

Human Factors Integration

The introduction of automation in relation to human factors refers to the use of technology in place of human interference. One of the most common implementations of automation in such a way is the use of autopilots. A pilots work throughout a flight includes the operation, handling, and monitoring of issues that relate to control systems and engines. They are also responsible for the flight to a destination in a safe and efficient manner). Such tasks over prolonged flights are often significantly exhausting, and exhausted aircraft workers may result in dangerous or even deadly outcomes (Banks et al., 2018). The introduction of the autopilot system had vastly reduced the risks as it works to assist and continue the flight without manual input from the pilot, allowing them to retain more energy and perform in a safe and appropriate way.

Auto-throttle is another component of the automation system that allows for an improved flight. The management of the flow of fuel allows the system to have control over the thrust from the engines. The system is able to identify engine parameters and control the engines in all areas of the flight, including takeoff (Zhang et al., 2021). The anti-skid braking system also improves the safety of traveling as they have the ability to control pressure by releasing braking wheels without manual interference before skidding or locking up. The primary goal of minimizing human interference with the use of automation is to mitigate fatigue and workload away from human workers (Gawron, 2019). The productivity and quality of work of the individuals in the aviation industry may then also improve.

Pilot and Computer Interfaces

The current assessment of pilot and computer interfaces has deemed the systems to be underperforming, and increased automation has the potential to ease these issues. This is often a result of poor integration of more modern technology with prior systems and devices. For instance, the control modes proliferation has caused issues with modern systems, especially in cases in which autopilots are controlling flights. However, modern approaches and capabilities can allow for improved automation of flight warning systems (Ancel et al., 2022). Automated warning systems are a growing trend within aviation, with only certain firms currently implementing them.

The warning system presents many advantages, such as the ability to notify a pilot of the need for monitoring and assessing the aircraft. These interfaces can allow the pilot to be informed of the state of the aircrafts hydraulic, electrical, and other systems while in the cockpit. Environmental threats can also be monitored and considered in regard to the safety of the flight. Currently implemented automation systems include the wind shear avoidance system, GPWs, enhanced ground proximity warning system, and a number of other integral elements available directly through a cockpit interface (Gawron, 2019). Proper flight configuration, gear-related warning, and landing gear competitions warning are other vital features of the current automation interface approaches.

Flight Management System

Flight management systems, or FMS, rely deeply on the adequate implementation of automation. Most variations of FMS are highly specialized and allow for the automation of nearly all in-flight tasks and jobs that were performed by pilots and air hosts prior. Flight engineers and navigators benefit from FMS as a substantial amount of their work has been reduced and allows them to focus on tasks that require manual labor (Kelly & Efthymiou, 2019). Specific tasks such as the determination of the position of the aircraft during flight, sensor management, and additional automated tasks are currently controlled by an FMS throughout a journey. The FMS itself is controlled by pilots through a control display unit, which is located in the cockpit like the majority of other devices. Its management is simplified by its physical design which is usually a small touch-screen device that allows for easy access.

Advantages of Automation in Aviation

The automation system currently in place has often been questioned in regard to its effectiveness. While they reduce or mitigate tasks and relieve workers from exhaustion, they are similarly prone to error and can instigate accidents. As such, the modern use of automation requires further adaptation and development to ensure that risks of error are minimized. However, despite the instances of error, the majority of automation functions are more efficient in reducing risk factors than human factors (Alvarez et al., 2020). As such, the systems offer a variety of advantages. The primary benefits include the ability of automated systems to inform the crew of the situation and status of the flight as well as the significant improvements in operating costs of an aircraft.

Automation is more efficient in recognizing and observing issues that may occur within an aircraft. Similarly, the processes by which automation operates are more consistent and therefore less error-prone than inconsistent and variable human interferences (Özkan et al, 2021). As such, the systems are able to provide the crew with appropriate and relevant information during the flight, the take-off, and the landing. This process directly contributes to the reduced risk of collisions, crashes, the flying of incorrect routes, and other incidents.

Conclusion

The use of automation results in the focus of human labor on specific tasks and does not need additional human interference. As such, airlines are able to observe a noticeable reduction in operating costs due to the performance of computer systems. The cohesion of multiple systems, such as the flight function, fuel management, and weather controls, allows for ease and cohesion that could not otherwise be achieved. Such effectiveness provides passengers with better flight experiences and contributes to the overall performance of an airline company. The report has observed the ways in which automation is present in aviation, primarily through the assistance of human factors, the pilot and computer interfaces, and flight management systems. Automation works to reduce errors and create consistent operations which increase the safety, and productivity of workers, and reduce operating costs for airlines.

Recommendations

In order to consider relevant recommendations, it is vital to assess current academic literature and research in relation to gaps in automation within aviation. The central theme that recurs during most works is focused on existing advantages, disadvantages, and better adaptation to human factors within flight operations. As such, the primary issue in automation within the aviation industry is focused on the creation and facilitation of better interfaces (Osunwusi, 2019). These devices must utilize an intuitive and consistent design that provides pilots with easy transitions between planes, or even airlines. There is currently a lack of universality among automated technology within the industry, though it may prove beneficial in the long run. The recommendations that have been observed in this report suggest that industry-wide intervention and design creation is necessary to improve the experience of pilots with automation interfaces.

References

Alvarez, A., Gonzalez, M. I., & Gracia, A. (2020). Flight procedures automation: Towards flight autonomy in manned aircraft. 2020 AIAA/IEEE 39th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC). IEEE. Web.

Ancel, E., Young, S. D., Quach, C. C., Haq, R. F., Darafsheh, K., Smalling, K. S., Vasquez, S. L., Dill, E. T., Condotta, R. C., Ethridge, B. E., Tesla, L. R., & Johnson, T. A. (2022). Design and Testing of an Approach to Automated In-Flight Safety Risk Management for sUAS Operations. AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum. Aerospace Research Central. Web.

Banks, V. A., Plant, K. L., & Stanton, N. A. (2018). Driving aviation forward; contrasting driving automation and aviation automation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20(3), 250-264. Web.

Gawron, V. (2019). Automation in AviationAccident Analyses. MITRE. Web.

Gawron, V. (2019). Automation in AviationGuidelines. MITRE. Web.

Kelly, D., & Efthymiou, M. (2019). An analysis of human factors in fifty controlled flight into terrain aviation accidents from 2007 to 2017. Journal of Safety Research, 69(1), 155-165. Web.

Meryeme, H., Mohamed, B., & Salahddine, K. (2018). Optimization and automation of air traffic control systems: An overview. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Mathematics, 7(3), 104-116. Web.

Osunwusi, A. O. (2019). Aviation Automation and CNS/ATM-related Human-Technology Interface: ATSEP Competency Considerations. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 6(4). Web.

Özkan, Y. D., Mirnig, A. G., Meschtscherjakov, A., Demir, C., & Tscheligi, M. (2021). Mode Awareness Interfaces in Automated Vehicles, Robotics, and Aviation: A Literature Review. AutomotiveUI 21: 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Association for Computing Machinery. Web.

Zhang, Z. T, Liu, Y. & Hußmann, H. (2019). Pilot Attitudes Toward AI in the Cockpit: Implications for Design. 2021 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS). IEEE. Web.

Introduction

Meteorological hazards, such as floods, storms, earthquakes, and rising seas, can endanger lives and have a negative impact on economies. Such events as wind, shear, turbulence, and severe thunderstorms are particularly harmful to aviation. For example, according to Goodman (2019, p. 479), weather was responsible for 32.6% of the total number of delay minutes recorded in the US. In the paper, the impact of the most adverse meteorological hazards is determined, which is linked to construction and financial losses, which prediction methods and alternative transportation should prevent.

Prevalence of Meteorological Hazards in Aviation

Weather is among the most important factors influencing how an airplane operates and how securely it can fly. Downpours, thunderstorms, windstorms, and cyclones seem to be prevalent, resulting in expenses in the aviation business and flights that are either delayed or canceled (Oo & Oo, 2022). The researchers discovered that thunderstorms, rain, and fog occur the most frequently (Oo & Oo, 2022; Wang, 2019). For example, thunderstorms occurred with a maximum frequency of 22% in July and a low of 1% in January (Oo & Oo, 2022, p. 3). Annual frequency research found that thunderstorms are becoming more prevalent yearly due to worldwide climate change (Oo & Oo, 2022). The coastal regions are more prone to rain and thunderstorms, but the systems in the continental areas are more sensitive to snowstorms (Wang, 2019). The worst weather phenomena include poor vision, low ceilings, and rainstorm and fog weather conditions. The impacts of considerable flight icing or in-flight disturbance are among the most severe risks to an aircraft. According to accident records, these incidents might be caused by a thunderstorms immediate or indirect influence.

The Impact of Meteorological Hazards in Aviation

Meteorological hazards can cause significant delays in air transportation, resulting in the canceling or postponing tens of thousands of flights and disrupting the plans and finances of millions of individuals. Furthermore, poor weather conditions may result in a plane crash. As a result, some of the adverse effects of hazards include loss of aerodynamic forces and velocity, causing the aircraft to crash into the earth before the flight staff takes corrective measures (Zhou & Chen, 2020). Next, turbulence, particularly in a small airplane, causes structural failure to the aircraft. Low visibility causes flight cancellations, fuel waste since planes cannot land at their intended location, aircraft damage in midair crashes, and deaths resulting from aircraft casualties (Zhou & Chen, 2020). The damage produced by these events sometimes necessitates costly repairs or entire equipment replacement.

Recommendation and Limitations

One can recommend several enhancements in the aviation industry to prevent cancellations, accidents, and economic losses. As such, aviation weather predictions must also be produced in order to give precise information that incorporates both predictable and statistical methodologies (2019, Sharman et al.). The studies reveal that modal replacement is a successful transportation system resilience approach. Namely, the restoration speed of air service was shown to be quicker if an alternate mode, including such high-speed rail service, was also available nearby (Zhou and Chen, 2020). Hence, it is suggested that for intense awareness campaigns, aviation safety stakeholders propose better prediction methods and the construction of alternative transportation. However, the initiatives limitations might involve the aviation companies financial incapacities to follow the guidelines.

Conclusion

To conclude, the paper has examined the meteorological hazards linking them to the recommendations for the aviation industry, including financial limitations. Shifting climatic and meteorological circumstances substantially influence airport aircraft performance, which cannot be avoided. As a result, until new solutions are developed, the influence of weather on aircraft is expected to grow throughout time. Hence, designing and implementing prediction strategies and employing alternative transportation is essential.

References

Goodman, C. J. (2019). Meteorological impacts on commercial aviation delays and cancellations in the continental United States. AMETSOC. Web.

Oo, K. T., & Oo, K. L. (2022, April 15). Analysis of the most common aviation weather hazard and its key mechanisms over the Yangon flight information region. Advances in Meteorology, 2022, 115.

Sharman, R., Williams, P. D., Zhou, B., Ellrod, G., Minnis, P., Trier, S., Griffin, S., Yum, S. S., Gharabaghi, B., Feltz, W., Temimi, M., Pu, Z., Storer, L. N., Kneringer, P., Weston, M. J., Chuang, H. Y., Thobois, L., Dimri, A. P., Dietz, S. J.,& Neto, F. L. A. (2019, May). A Review of high impact weather for aviation meteorology. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176(5), 18691921.

Wang, Y. (2019). Impacts of severe weather events on high-speed rail and aviation delays. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 69, 168183. Web.

Zhou, L., & Chen, Z. (2020). Measuring the performance of airport resilience to severe weather events. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 83, 102362. Web.

Abstract

There is a long-lasting debate on the benefits and shortcomings of extensive automation in aviation security. Contemporary technologies allow the security staff to perform most of the operations without any specialized knowledge. On the one hand, such an approach results in much more convenient passenger experience. However, on the other hand, some people argue that technology is associated with the reduction of skills. It should be noted that there is no clear answer to whether excessive dependence on technology is favorable or disrupting. Studies suggest that it is not possible to isolate the positive influence of technology from its negative effects. Instead, the professionals in the industry should develop ways of mitigating some of the unfavorable consequences by integrating new approaches to security technology, such as adaptable automation. Technology will always have adverse effects, but it is up to the industry professionals to alleviate disadvantageous impacts.

Introduction

Due to increasing levels of risk and threats, airports around the world and aviation companies are forced to invest in the development of advanced ways of ensuring safety and security. Because the primary purpose of airports and flight carriers is to serve passengers, contemporary security solutions are taking a customer-centric approach. They are all designed to speed up the inspection process while delivering accurate results. However, due to substantial automation, some people claim that security officers will be adversely affected because the new machines will take away many of the responsibilities, and the professionals will lose their skills over time. This paper provides information on the motivation behind automated security systems, how they affect personnel expertise, and whether there is a way to make technology and human expertise complement each other.

Motivation Behind New Security Technologies

The introduction of new technologies to the airport and aviation security is not motivated only by a thirst for technological development, but also by security requirements that are to counter new security threats. Much of the innovations are aligned with the concept of usable security  customer experience is viewed to be the most critical, and new devices are designed to take a customer-centric approach to safety (Nowacki and Paszukow, 2018). The reason is that points of passport control and security screening are the most distressing environments for passengers (Nowacki and Paszukow, 2018). While legal requirements call for more security and vigilance, passenger convenience should not be neglected (Nowacki and Paszukow, 2018). Therefore, both airports and aviation companies are continuously looking for ways to improve the customer experience while maintaining the required level of security. Without advancements in security technology, it is not possible.

Passenger screening is among the most critical pieces of aviation and airport security. At the time being, all customers must be screened before they are admitted to exit gates (Skorupski and UchroDski, 2019). This requirement assumes that all security personnel is acquainted with the procedures (Skorupski and UchroDski, 2019). However, some advancements in security technology may ease the demands (Korbelak et al., 2018). For instance, trusted traveler programs exist that allow low-risk passengers to pass through expedited screening (Nowacki and Paszukow, 2018). Not only it improves the customer experience, but it takes away some amount of pressure from security officials. In turn, individuals with a low qualification will be able to handle the load (Nowacki and Paszukow, 2018). The introduction of CCTV powered by artificial intelligence may further lead to the degradation of skills because many of the responsibilities, such as identifying people with weapons, will be accomplished by the automated system (Nowacki and Paszukow, 2018). However, advocates for advanced security technology claim that new enhancements not only increase employee effectiveness but also improve customer convenience.

Current Technologies

To understand how new technology affects employee skill set, it is reasonable to discuss some of the most critical elements of todays airport security. In the early days of aviation, passengers were screened with metal detectors (Karoly, 2017). Security officials were responsible for all other work, such as inspecting the customers for the presence of prohibited non-metallic items. Today, however, Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) allows officials to detect hidden objects without any physical contact (Karoly, 2017). AIT uses non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and processes the reflected signals to construct the image (Karoly, 2017). Manual screening may be omitted entirely if no anomalies are found.

Advanced Technology X-ray is the primary means for inspecting personal and checked bags. Electromagnetic radiation is used to enter the inside of containers and to detect prohibited items (Karoly, 2017). These X-rays used to construct an image that security officials needed to inspect carefully. It required alertness and the knowledge of shapes of potentially dangerous objects (Karoly, 2017). Contemporary systems, however, outline the potential threat using a different color (Karoly, 2017). Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) machines, as the name suggests, help identify explosive substances. These machines require human expertise because they are not easy to operate (Karoly, 2017). However, new Explosives Detection Systems may entirely replace ETD machines because they are fully automated and do not require any expertise on behalf of a security official.

Risks of Automation

Complete autonomy in operations is not always beneficial despite introducing many advantages for security and convenience. However, contradictive as it may sound, too much automation inevitably leads to security risks. That is because any automated system heavily depends on some piece of software, and software is never perfect (Neumann, 2016). Such systems will always be a potential target for hackers and terrorists (Neumann, 2016). Therefore, systems need intensive monitoring, and despite taking away many of the responsibilities of security officers, maintenance of such systems requires other people with more sophisticated skill sets.

The importance of the fact that the automation of security components leads to skill degradation should be emphasized. People with no appropriate qualifications will not be able to conduct quality security screening if there is a breach or failure (Chavaillaz et al., 2019a). Therefore, automation may sometimes harm instead of enhancing security (Chavaillaz et al., 2019a). However, contemporary systems rarely fail and jeopardize the safety of the airport (Karoly, 2017). Another source of concern is how well computer networks are protected (Karoly, 2017). This point is critical because much of the infotainment equipment resides on the same network as aircraft controls (Karoly, 2017). In this context, the security of the network becomes vital. One way of mitigating the risk is to protect the network by all means (Karoly, 2017). A more favorable approach would be to isolate infotainment and aircraft controls from each other by putting them into different subnets.

Automation Failures

One of the most vital aspects of aviation security is the interaction of humans with automated systems. Despite the fact that security systems are designed to protect the safety of passengers, dangerous circumstances may be caused if systems fail (Vidulich and Tsang, 2016). A crash may lead to a situation where a security officer is required to react immediately to new conditions (Vidulich and Tsang, 2016). Such pressure can only be overcome by mastery of necessary skills (Vidulich and Tsang, 2016). However, it is discovered that time pressure may have a significant adverse impact, even on extremely high-level experts (Vidulich and Tsang, 2016). A 2009 crash of the Air France plane heading from Rio de Janeiro to Paris is an example of an automated system component failure along with the inability of the responsible personnel to mitigate the consequences of the fault (Vidulich and Tsang, 2016). Due to storms, the planes automated flight control system ceased to function, and the pilots had to switch to manual control (Vidulich and Tsang, 2016). However, as it was later noted, because of shock, the crew could not conduct a proper analysis of the situation (Vidulich and Tsang, 2016). Approximately after four and a half minutes from the moment the autopilot stopped working, the plane crashed into the ocean.

The described situation can be transferred to aviation and airport security because security officials more and more have to interact with automated systems. Despite the consistent performance, these systems may fail, and humans will need to take responsibility and control (Vidulich and Tsang, 2016). Without proper training, expertise, and experience, it is almost impossible for an individual to react adequately and timely to critical situations.

Degradation of Skills and Ways for Improvement

Human Factors

Skills and expertise are only a part of what affects the performance of security personnel in critical circumstances. Human errors are primarily contributed by repetitive jobs, neglected work procedures, and monotonous activities (Arcúrio, Nakamura and Armborst, 2018). Prior to massive automation, work as a security officer at an airport used to be repetitive, but due to the dynamics of the work, it was not monotonous (Arcúrio, Nakamura and Armborst, 2018). However, with recent advancements in technology, previously existing high dynamics are becoming non-existent (Arcúrio, Nakamura and Armborst, 2018). Therefore, it can be supposed that automation leads to a higher percentage of human mistakes, which can jeopardize the whole aviation security system.

Attention is also critical for people working as security officers. Depending on circumstances, automation may have positive effects on human performance or may not have any impact at all (Arcúrio, Nakamura and Armborst, 2018). Manual work requires more attention and focus from employees, and if there are many items that should be tracked simultaneously, performance level decreases (Arcúrio, Nakamura and Armborst, 2018). Automation generally solves this problem, but concurrent activities may negatively impact the workers performance. It is an interesting fact that experienced security officers make more errors than other professionals (Arcúrio, Nakamura and Armborst, 2018). The primary reason is complacency and neglect of the procedures (Arcúrio, Nakamura and Armborst, 2018). In summary, it can be argued that a significant portion of human errors is a result of automation. New technologies make the job of security personnel easier but also more monotonous, leading to a more considerable number of mistakes.

Trust and Expertise

Opportunities that automated systems provide affect novices differently than experienced workers. On the one hand, beginners, benefit more from the system because their experience level does not allow them to perform well without some aid tool (Chavaillaz et al., 2019a). On the other hand, more experienced individuals show consistent results, both with and without an automated detection system (Chavaillaz et al., 2019a). These results support the claim that automation systems do not adversely impact the skill levels of security personnel (Chavaillaz et al., 2019a). This proposal can be supported by the fact that more experienced individuals that had worked with automated diagnostic aid tools for a substantial amount of time demonstrate better compliance and reliance. However, it is not true for all automated systems, as the majority of them, as was discussed earlier, negatively impact a workers attention.

Automated diagnostic aid tools serve different purposes for varying expertise levels. They are designed to teach novices, as they are inclined to rely on the recommendations of the device significantly (Chavaillaz et al., 2019a). They also provide an opportunity for more skilled workers to confirm their opinions based on the systems results. However, the way professionals use these machines is entirely based on trust. Should the system make a mistake, it can negatively impact professionals with little experience who cannot yet rely on their own expertise.

Adaptable Automation

The notion of adaptable automation can be an effective way of solving many of the problems introduced by the automated system in regard to worker skill sets and expertise. The term represents the idea that a security professional is able to adjust the level of automation he or she wishes to receive (Chavaillaz et al., 2019b). For instance, the majority of security professionals prefer to be guided by the system instead of being directed. It is more favorable for a system to hint at the potential location of a prohibited item instead of explicitly pointing at the exact position (Crespo, 2019). When professionals are tired, they may want to switch to a higher level of automation. Systems should be flexible in terms of the level of automation not to harm the workers development and not to contribute to the degradation of workers skills (Filippov, Elisov and Ovchenkov, 2019). Operator autonomy has significant benefits; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that full automation without any opportunities for adjustments is harmful to security officials.

Conclusion

There are many benefits of automation, such as faster inspection times, lower pressure on security personnel, and customer convenience. However, in the event of device failure, security professionals will need to take the entire responsibility and respond in a timely manner. Therefore, expertise is critical, but personnel skills are lessened when automation takes away all of their responsibilities. There should be a balance between the level of automation and skills level of workers and their condition. Adaptable automation is a significant attribute of contemporary security systems because it allows security officers to adjust the level of automation according to their needs. Such an approach not only facilitates more effective inspection but also personnel skill retention.

Reference List

Arcúrio, M. S., Nakamura, E. S. and Armborst, T. (2018) Human factors and errors in security aviation: an ergonomic perspective, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018(1), pp. 1-9.

Chavaillaz, A. et al. (2019a) Expertise, automation and trust in X-ray screening of cabin baggage, Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1), pp. 1-11.

Chavaillaz, A. et al. (2019b) Work design for airport security officers: effects of rest break schedules and adaptable automation, Applied Ergonomics, 79(1), pp. 66-75.

Crespo, A. M. F. (2019) Less automation and full autonomy in aviation, dilemma or conundrum?, 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC). The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Bari, Italy, 6-9 October. Bari: IEEE, pp. 4245-4250.

Filippov, V. L., Elisov, L. N. and Ovchenkov, N. I. (2019) A new approach to the human factors assessment in the automated control system of aviation security in the airport, Security & Future, 3(2), pp. 41-42.

Karoly, S. (2017) Technologies to counter aviation security threats, AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP, Washington, USA, 21-22 April. Washington: AIP Publishing LLC, pp. 1-7.

Korbelak, K. et al. (2018) Teaming with technology at the TSA: practical methods for enhancing human performance with automation in operational environments, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, USA, 25-27 September. Los Angeles: SAGE, pp. 639-640.

Neumann, P. G. (2016) Risks of automation: a cautionary total-system perspective of our cyberfuture, Communications of the ACM, 59(10), pp. 26-30.

Nowacki, G. and Paszukow, B. (2018) Security requirements for new threats at international airports, TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 12(1), pp 187-192.

Skorupski, J. and UchroDski, P. (2019) An analysis of the cabin baggage security screening process incorporating automation elements, Archives of Transport System Telematics, 12(1), pp. 42-48.

Vidulich, M.A. and Tsang, P. (2016) Expert performance and time pressure: implications for automation failures in aviation. Web.

First, Safety Management System (SMS) is directly related to the provision of safety to the staff that is largely founded on the adherence to and advocating of the established standards by the personnel themselves. Hence, the human factor will be integrated by the related activities of your workers who  to an exact extent  will be responsible for the implementation of SMS. The crucial point here is that SMS cannot operate appropriately without the due diligence of your employees.

Second, an SMS program cannot be brought into life properly if it functions only at the exact departments of your aviation company. In aviation, all the departments are intersected and interconnected; thus, if there is the absence of SMS at one of them, there is the absence of SMS at the others (Britton, 2018). As stated above, human factors integration is vital for SMS, and given such unity within aviation companies structure, the entire organization should receive human factors training.

Third, managers are required to be involved in human factors training. Your managers will be a crucial element of one of the four pillars of SMS  safety risk management (SMS Pro, n.d.). They need to demonstrate an in-depth understanding of human factors and related issues because the responsibility to evaluate risks and provide possible solutions lies with them.

Fourth, the concept of SMS might be considered broader than the traditional notion of risk management. SMS includes four primary components, or pillars  safety policy, safety risk management, safety assurance, and safety promotion (SMS Pro, n.d.). It seems apparent that risk management is the integrated element of SMS; however, it still requires substantial effort, knowledge, and experience to be implemented appropriately and expediently.

References

Britton, T. (2018). 3 most important human factors in aviation SMS  theyll surprise you. SMS Pro.

SMS Pro. (n.d.). Definition of aviation safety management system.

Introduction

Nowadays, Global Positioning System (GPS) is a common and popular navigational instrument implemented in many fields of human life. For instance, it can be highly effective in aviation and aerospace navigation due to its efficiency in terms of aircraft positioning. However, GPS users in the United States can often confront various issues, such as spoofing. The system might require additional hardware to operate efficiently, including means of detection.

Global Positioning System in the United States

The goals of aviation in the 21st century have caused a necessity to create an effective method of aircraft positioning. GPS is one of many instruments implemented in the satellite technology of the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GPSS) (Krasuski & Savchuk, 2020). However, not all of them are certified to be used for general purposes in civil aviation. GPS is one of two such systems that have received certifications based on various efficiency parameters, including accuracy, availability, continuity, and reliability (Krasuski & Savchuk, 2020). The primary reason is the dangers associated with navigational systems, especially their potential vulnerability to multiple interferences on radio frequencies. Some of them are unintentional, like signals coming from TV or radio stations, but others are intentional, like spoofing attacks or jamming (Miralles et al., 2020). Nowadays, researchers and scientists recommend different detection methods, such as power monitoring metrics, to provide the most effective spoofing detection algorithm (Miralles et al., 2020). GPS becomes a highly efficient navigational tool with some assistance from additional hardware.

Conclusion

Overall, GPS in the United States requires additional means of detection to be able to deal with issues like spoofing and keep its effectiveness. GPS is one of the most common global navigational systems, especially in aviation and aerospace navigation. Given that it has its own tools to address potential problems, GPS can significantly help aircraft and people working with them.

References

Krasuski, K., & Savchuk, S. (2020). Accuracy assessment of aircraft positioning using the dual-frequency GPS code observations in aviation. Communications-Scientific Letters of the University of Zilina, 22(2), 23-30.

Miralles, D., Bornot, A., Rouquette, P., Levigne, N., Akos, D. M., Chen, Y. H., & Walter, T. (2020). An assessment of GPS spoofing detection via radio power and signal quality monitoring for aviation safety operations. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 12(3), 136-146.

Introduction

Commercial aviation, which is a component of civil aviation, is the business of operating aircraft to transport people and goods on hire. The airliners used in the transportation of passengers and cargo range from single-engine freight planes to the Boeing 747. Commercial aircraft were accepted after the Second World War. Since then, it has been experiencing steady growth. For instance, in the 1950s, most European countries started manufacturing new aircraft such as The Beech and Cessna.

The Cessna was the most used aircraft since it had a greater production volume and could earn revenue of between $10,000 -$ 30,000 annually. In the 1960s, commercial airliners adopted planes that had turbo-powered engines, jet engines, and pressurized cockpits and cabin. As the paper reveals, although such developments have been in use up to date, the ever-changing technology and customer demands or preferences leave commercial aviation with no choice other than incorporating changes in the industry to remain relevant in the current business world. Hence, commercial aviation is expected to change significantly in the next 5 years.

Analysis of Forecasts in Commercial Aviation

With the expected change in commercial aviation, the financial analysis forecasting tools that will contribute to analyzing the industry can be classified into four classes. According to Hansen (2003), the market share financial analysis is a top-down tool where activity at an airport is regarded as being directly proportional to growth in the combined external measure. Hence, to produce correct predictions, it is vital for the airport activity and the larger aggregate link ratio to remain constant over a specified duration.

Most airport economic forecasts use econometrics, which relies on explanatory variables that discuss the impacts of the demand and supply of commercial aviation activities. These variables are categorized into macroeconomic and demographic elements, aviation market forces, innovation and production costs, and technology. Other variables include legal factors, capital investment constraints or upgrades, and substitutes for air travel. The third financial tool is the Time Series analysis that involves extrapolating the current data or graph into the future.

This financial analysis tool considers the values of the factors that need to be forecasted. It aims to predict future profit or outcomes based on existing or past trends. This financial analysis tool is a low-cost approach to forecasting compared to the econometric tool. Even though the method is easy to use and understand, individual statistical theories that are adopted to enhance the accuracy level can be quite complex.

This financial analyzing approach is necessary when unusual forces hinder the stability of the relationship between local activity and other external variables. The simulation method is another technique of analysis that captures high-fidelity pictures of traffic flows in a channel or at an airport. Such a technique imposes strict regulations that dictate how people, cargo, and aircraft are routed. It then calculates the results in a manner that the management can analyze the establishment requirements of the system or airport with the view of establishing mechanisms to sustain the estimated traffic flow.

Despite the drastic decline in activities throughout the last decade, the use of financial analysis tools to forecast commercial aviation has maintained a positive outcome. The challenges of forecasting the aviation industry activities led to the need for an advanced understanding of the components that have an impact on this business.

The Expected Changes

In the next five years, commercial aviation is bound to change significantly. The first expected change will revolve around its customer relationship strategies. The rising competition in the airline industry, which is expected to be at peak in the half-a-decade period, brings with it the need for new strategies that commercial aviation should adopt to retain its clientele or attract new ones from its competitors. To implement its Customer Relationship Management (CRM) framework, commercial aviation will need to take into account the elements that characterize successful CRM as shown in Figure 1.

In other businesses, customer knowledge, tastes, and preferences, and other consumer-related activities are important to offer personalized products and services. Therefore, airlines must change or improve on their reliance on the current loyalty models, which can enhance critical customer data that includes increased spending activities through branded credit cards. It may reveal the real situation about the travel patterns and preferences of customers.

In the 1997-2001 period, commercial aviation recorded significant losses because of the then financial crisis that discouraged many clients from using airlines. Economic meltdown and fuel costs are the primary factors that are currently hindering the growth of the aviation industry. According to Boland, Morrison, and ONeill (2002, p. 2), On a global basis, airlines saw a US$12 billion operating loss in 2001 before taking into account various government bail-outs. Graph 1 below shows the financial performance during this period.

In the next five years and based on the above results, airliners will need to invest in more sophisticated customer analytics. Advanced technology alone will not solve this issue. Eriksson and Steenhuis (2015) assert that commercial aviation must reorganize its structure and procedures to suit its customer service into its organizational mission and vision. Commercial airlines will need to reframe every point of contact between the client and the airline personnel, especially in the areas of booking up flights, check-in, and in-flight experiences.

These points will assist the airline management not only to collect vital data about customers tastes and choices but also to adopt ways to meet and surpass their expectations. More customer knowledge and affection aim to realize better customer service experience and good revenues (Boland, Morrison, & ONeill 2002). Hence, commercial aviation will need to examine its clients demands and worth addressing or serve them efficiently.

The improved customers experience such as the recommended flights to customers destinations of choice will present the airliner with a bigger chance to generate the targeted revenue while attracting loyal customers. The strategy will result in a higher percentage of sales through direct channels. These changes will also allow full-service carriers to maintain existing services and/or charge fees for specific flight features that include fast-tracking security measures or pre-boarding.

The next five years will be marked by the adoption of digitization in commercial aviation to minimize operating costs. Aircraft manufacturing companies must make use of the latest technology and innovation to improve internal systems and/or reduce costs.

An airline system that can allow regular resource distribution and allocation enables its greater utilization. Digital engines can send alerts to the maintenance and operations desks if mechanical problems arise while an aircraft is on a flight. It can also request assistance when it lands. This change will not only minimize the downtime but also enhance performance in a huge way. Besides reducing operational costs, it will increase customer satisfaction through frequent on-time arrivals and departures. According to Linden (2002), the majority of these costs shot up in the 1980s because of increased itinerant operations.

Consequently, both local and itinerant service costs went up following the same upward trends. After the recent innovation, improvements, and the digitization of aircraft, the aviation operations expenses and the operation cost dropped dramatically during the 2006-2011 period. The drop led to the profits that were recorded in the same period as shown in Graph 2 below (The US Department of Transportation 2012).

Irrespective of the challenges that are expected to come with increased fuel expenses and reduced customer requirements, the next five years call for key airlines to cooperatively move from a sequence of yearly working losses, as it was witnessed between 2002 and 2006, to breaking even in 2016 and more importantly recording operating profitability that surpasses the 2010-2011 returns. Commercial aviation will need to cut costs to enhance operational efficiency.

The current business world is characterized by a growing need for airlines to make large innovations to function more efficiently. The most profitable airlines have the strictest cost regulations. The biggest lever to minimize costs lies in fuel consumption. For instance, in most airliners budget, jet fuel amounts to between 40 to 50 percent of the operational cost. Airliners with surplus funds are now digitizing their fleet to make space for the more fuel-efficient fleet.

As Dixon (2006) asserts, the rapid rise in jet fuel prices has significantly changed the matrix of airline business plans, which have resulted in an unprecedented urge for fuel-efficient aircraft. Hence, a decrease in fuel prices will most likely alter the carriers business plans. Since the short-term financial goals for many airlines are achieved, the new change may result in a mixed expectation for airliners and fleet manufacturers over the years.

Experts believe that the aviation industry will expend roughly $70 billion less on jet energy in 2016 compared to 2015, which is a 33% decrease (Flottau et al. 2015). Even though these planes are expensive to manufacture or buy, this change has a real value, especially if the idea is formulated in line with commercial aviation business long-term investment plans of configuring its system. The change will have an impact on the programmatic diversification of particular routes over time. Cost-cutting changes will also be attained through improvements in management structures, operating methods, and job practices.

Fuel-efficient planes are more profitable compared to the ordinary. Hence, in the coming five years, most banks will be willing to finance the buying or manufacture of these modern planes at low-interest rates. According to Bubb (2012), a reduction in fuel prices will be a huge exception, which will increase the carriers fortunes while disrupting the current market dynamics in the short run. The situation will lead to a significant shift in the cost gap between European, U.S. airlines, and Gulf carriers. For instance, the Fly Emirates, which is completely unhedged, will be among the largest carriers to witness the immediate advantages.

Overall Outlook of Commercial aviation after the Changes

As commercial aviation ushers in a new era of profit-making planes, it is relying on the manufacturers modification of improved performance, fuel-efficient engines, and better maintenance techniques, for instance, longer intervals between checks ups. New planes such as the Boeing 737 have advanced computer-based health monitoring systems as one of the crucial maintenance techniques and cost-cutting features. Most of the new planes are glossy.

They come with an intrinsic safe and secure network file server that undertakes many self-diagnostics functions. Such systems reduce operational costs. Regarding customers and airport security, airplane checkpoints are currently sorting passengers and grouping them through digital screening technology. Risk assessment of travelers is crucial progress towards arresting terrorists and anyone who possesses a security threat.

According to Chow (2005), this change will lead to positive customer response since much time will be saved in the checkpoint areas. The new modernized inspection will work in a manner whereby passengers walk to the checkpoint will be directed to various lanes, depending on the data collected from their passports or travel tickets. At the lane, a biometric check such as an iris scan will be used to search passenger identity. After the biometric test, the next security check will be the advanced x-ray scanners and chemical sniffers that will clear passengers before they proceed. This innovation will guarantee convenience to customers since they will not be required to remove shoes, clothing, gadgets, or any liquids they carry.

It will also eliminate physical contact when searching. Such changes will improve service delivery and security in most airports. As a result, the commercial aviation industry is expected to increase tremendously in air traffic in the coming years. Also, the increased emissions of greenhouse gas, thanks to the full electrification of commercial planes, will lead to ensuring that the aircraft becomes environmentally friendly through its zero or no CO2 emission plan.

Due to the increased usage, parts of the plane can malfunction at any time. However, the new Airbus design has made innovations and improvements in terms of reliability and operational efficiency. Hence, in the next five years, manufacturing companies will start producing engines with better terms of inspection intervals. Besides being built with lighter materials, the engines will be much more fuel-efficient and less noisy.

Conclusion

The paper has discussed in detail the status of commercial aviation as an important aspect of the national airspace and airport system. Even though the industry faces operational expenses, commercial aviation is an important part of the community as a whole, including other stakeholders. These stakeholders include pilots, plane manufacturers, and a reliable workforce. These stakeholder groups are among the factors that drive commercial aviation activity.

They help to forecast its future. Based on the findings of the paper, it is indeed clear that commercial aviation will change significantly in the next five years. The paper has discussed how financial tools can be used in forecasting commercial aviation activities whose primary aim is to obtain the future perspective of the industry as a whole. The paper has also discussed the previous levels in the aviation industry operations concerning trends and historical events, which brought to light what drives this huge industry. As seen in the paper, fuel costs and operational expenses will have a significant impact on the activity levels of the industry.

Even though the airline industry struggles with revenue margins, the current growth rate in most markets in conjunction with advancing innovation and customer preferences present the industry with a real opportunity. Hence, it is likely to advance in the next half a decade.

References

Boland, D, Morrison, D & ONeill, S 2002, The future of CRM in the airline industry: A new paradigm for customer management, IBM Corporation, Somers, NY.

Bubb, D 2012, Landing in Las Vegas: Commercial Aviation and the making of a Tourist City, University of Nevada Press, Reno.

Chow, J 2005, Protecting Commercial Aviation against the Shoulder-fired Missile Threat, Rand Corp, Santa Monica, CA.

Dixon, M 2006, The Maintenance Costs of Aging Aircraft: Insights from Commercial Aviation, RAND, Santa Monica, LA.

Eriksson, S & Steenhuis, H 2015, The Global Commercial Aviation Industry, Routledge, London.

Flottau, J, Broderick, S, Unnikrishnan, M & Schofield, A 2015, Drop In Oil Prices Means An Airline Profitability Boost Now. Web.

Hansen, O 2003, Commercial Aviation, Crabtree, New York, NY.

Linden, R 2002, Airlines and Airmail: The Post Office and the Birth of the Commercial Aviation Industry, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

The US Department of Transportation 2012, Aviation Industry Performance-A Review of the Aviation Industry, 2008-2011. Web.

Introduction

Modern aviation constantly faces the challenges of growing competition and rising fuel costs. An obvious solution to these problems is to reduce the weight of aircraft through the use of composite materials. Currently, the share of composites in the structures of modern aviation is not very high, but in a new generation of aircraft, this percentage will increase significantly. The development of new materials and the introduction of innovative technologies into the manufacturing process are potentially valuable for optimizing production and increasing safety. This work aims to highlight which composites are used in aviation and what advantages these materials have compared to traditional ones.

Features of Composite Materials in Aviation

Composites are heterogeneous materials composed of two or more components that differ in both chemical and physical properties. Among their features, one can single out reinforcing elements providing the necessary mechanical characteristics and a matrix, or binder, that ensures the joint work of reinforcing elements (Composites in the aircraft industry, n.d.). As a result of the combination of these components, new materials appear with unique properties, and due to their high-density indicators, their use in aviation is permissible.

Microdamages are inherent in traditional homogeneous materials, which makes them vulnerable to pressure and load. To get rid of them, such materials are used in the form of a thin fiber, and the smaller the thickness, the fewer defects remain in its section (Wood, composite, and transparent plastic structures, 2017). According to Kesarwani (2017), such fibers are enclosed in a matrix that ensures the joint work of the fibers in compression, tension, and bending. The properties of the fiber allow achieving high strength and stiffness values. The names of many composites include the types of fibers and matrices: carbon fiber reinforced plastics, fiberglass, and other materials (Kesarwani, 2017). The first word characterizes the type of hardeners, for instance, carbon, glass, and other fibers and fabrics, and the second one  is the types of bonding material, for example, plastics based on various resins or adhesives. These properties contribute to producing safe and relatively light details for aircraft manufacturing.

Benefits of Using Composites in Aviation

Composites are used as replacements for steel and aluminum because they are durable and resistant to corrosion, which makes their use in aviation profitable and safe. Another important advantage is the ability to independently choose the type of material, orientation, and volumetric content of fibers when designing (Kesarwani, 2017). This makes it possible to obtain structural materials with the desired functional properties and makes the use of composites a valuable and promising direction in aircraft construction. A relatively low weight of raw materials plays a critical role, as well as the ability to create complex aerodynamic surfaces of the highest quality.

The use of composites in the creation of the power section of the aircraft structure allows not only reducing weight but also its aerodynamic perfection. Moreover, when using this raw material, about 20% of fuel is saved, which is an objective reason for the transition to such components in aircraft production (Composites in the aircraft industry, n.d., para. 15). The use of composites provides an increase in the power of engines and the reduction of machines and devices weight. High-modulus carbon fiber is used for the manufacture of aircraft parts, for thermal protection, aircraft brake discs, and chemically resistant equipment (Wood, composite, and transparent plastic structures, 2017). Boron fiber products are utilized to create profiles, panels, rotors, and propeller blades (Wood, composite, and transparent plastic structures, 2017). The range of the use of composites is extensive, which explains the relevance of the transition to a new production model.

Aramid Composites in Aviation

One of the common composites used not only in aviation but also in other industries is aramid. Kevlar is its alternative name that may be better known (Wood, composite, and transparent plastic structures, 2017). This material belongs to the groups of organic polymers, and structural organic plastics reinforced with aramid fibers are lightweight composites (Wood, composite, and transparent plastic structures, 2017). As Kesarwani (2017) notes, due to these fibers, which are characterized by an extremely energy-intensive nature of destruction, organic plastics have a high resistance to damage after mechanical shocks of various degrees of intensity. Structures made of aramid are lightweight, impact-resistant, and erosion-resistant plating of helicopters, rotors, airplane wins, shock-resistant protective screens, and other details. The disadvantages of aramid are increased moisture absorption and stretching (Wood, composite, and transparent plastic structures, 2017). Therefore, working with this material requires following precise processing instructions on professional equipment.

Conclusion

The analysis of composites in aviation proves that these materials have numerous advantages over traditional ones and are the future of the aircraft industry due to the quality of production and potential savings, including fuel. Lighter weight, strength, and other features reflect the value of utilizing composites and the relevance of switching to them as the main manufacturing materials. Aramid, better known as Kevlar, is one of the most common composites and, despite some disadvantages, has high impact-resistant characteristics.

References

Composites in the aircraft industry. (n.d.). Web.

Kesarwani, S. (2017). Polymer composites in aviation sector. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 6(06), 518-525.

Wood, composite, and transparent plastic structures. (2017). Web.