Commercial Airline Safety and Security Standards

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Accident rates
Causes of commercial airline accidents
Improving security standards
Conclusion
Works cited

Introduction

Commercial airline transport remains to be the safest mode of transportation around the world (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 1). Statistics reveal that in 1998, out of the eighteen million flights made by travelers only ten cases were reported to be fatal accidents. This is a very small number compared to those recorded by other modes of transportation. Airline accidents do not result from a single cause but from a chain of events that lead to each other. The risk of commercial airline fatalities has been reducing drastically with the increase of flights in recent years (Gellman Research Association (GRA), 1997). The decline has been largely contributed by more proactive measures adopted by aviation regulation authorities like FAA to enforce high aviation standards (Bowen & Lu 4). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of commercial airline safety on the rate of accidents and their relationship to security standards.

Accident rates

According to the National Transport Safety Board (2005), there were 170 commercial airline aviation accidents reported in 2005 resulting from 1688 air crafts. This was 3% higher than that recorded in 2004. Out of these reported accidents only 321 were fatal accidents leading to 563 fatalities. There were 271 serious injuries and 462 minor injuries reported during the same period according to the statistics. Despite the slight rise in 2005, the prevalence of airline accidents has been declining consistently between the years 1996 to 2005. Accidents in the period of review decreased from 1908 in 1996 to1670 in 2005 while the fatal accidents declined from 361 to 321.

From a high of 636 in 1996, fatalities decreased to 563 in 2005 further signaling a decline in the number of commercial airline accidents globally. In US, the trend in different states reflected the state’s population density, the local terrain, weather patterns in the state, and types of flight operations. To illustrate this, California which is highly populated had a higher number of accidents in comparison to other states while Florida and Texas were favorite travel destinations. The three states are also known to have the greatest number of active aircraft and pilots. Alaska in particular presents unique challenges to airlines due to its hazardous terrain, weather, and infrastructure hence ranking 4^th among the states with the highest number of accidents. Single-engine piston airplanes were noted to cause most of the accidents reported accounted for 74% of all accidents and 73% of the fatalities. According to the board, 42% of the accidents occur at the airport while 47% occurred away from the airports resulting in higher fatalities. This is because those that occur near airports involved lower altitudes and lower speeds as compared to those that occurred away which involved higher altitudes at higher speeds.

Causes of commercial airline accidents

Aviation safety standards contribution

The safety standards of aviation have been blamed for the most of the air accidents involving commercial airlines. The contributing factors leading to deterioration of safety standards can be either human or natural. Among the listed factors include:

Environmental factors

Weather conditions are usually cited as contributing factors rather than the causes of accidents. Environmental conditions can affect any aircraft to a certain extent resulting in poor air safety standards. The main reason is that aircraft control is highly dependent on visibility aspects such as the speed, distance, the aircraft orientation, and the altitude of the plane. Windy conditions, high humidity and convectional weather conditions are among the culprits blamed for accidents especially during takeoffs and landing of aircraft. Sometimes weather conditions deteriorate leaving the pilot to depend on the aircraft instrument to control the plane. According to available data, 16% of the accidents that took place in visual conditions were fatal while 65% of those that occurred in instrument conditions resulted in fatalities. The reason is that the bad environmental conditions are likely to result to pilot disorientation, loss of control of the aircraft, and collision to objects or terrain resulting in heavier casualties. Poor visibility due to the above factors is thus the major cause of weather-related mishaps.

Poor lighting conditions

Poor night vision can be hazardous to pilots due to the associated difficulties in locating potentially hazardous objects such as mountains and other obstructions in addition to misplaced perception caused by poor visibility. The National Transport Safety Board reports that the largest proportion of fatalities occurred at night as a result of poor night vision. Night accidents were twice as fatal as daylight accidents. Poor weather conditions impair visual cues which hamper the pilot’s judgment and his ability to handle malfunctions in aircraft equipment.

Human factors and negligence of the crew

Human error contributes largely to many the air accidents. Out of the 1, 372 accidents in 2005, 72% were as a result of aircraft handling and control which was followed closely by planning and decision-making processes by the pilot at 36% while the control of aircraft equipment contributed to 11% of the accidents. It is also worth noting that out of the 116 accidents attributable to human performance, 35% were as a result of the incompetence of the pilots. Blunders and negligence by the crew can cause undesired effects to the airplane leading to injuries and fatalities. The crew is at times presented with situations that call for prompt mental processing and reaction time to solve problems that exceed their limits resulting in unavoidable accidents (Weigmann & Shappell 1010). Failure to coordinate the activities of the crew effectively might lead to confusion which might be catastrophic to the plane.

Corporate negligence has also been pointed out by Hedlund (1) as part of the indirect culprits of the commercial airline accidents. The airline investors have been known to seek any means available to minimize their operational costs. To do this, they have resulted in unethical methods of operations by pushing pilots to make unsafe landings in order to avoid paperwork, to run aircraft with minimum amount of fuel and to make other reckless decisions.

Poor design and faulty equipment

Aircraft control involves precise calculations and delicate mechanisms that involve complex technology. Sometimes accidents occur due to poorly maintained equipment which increases the possibility of mechanical failures in the aircraft. In recent years the Federal Aviation Administration has enforced stringent measures dictating how often maintenance processes have to be carried out on an aircraft (Devine 1). According to Hedlund (4), aircraft must be manufactured in a way to withstand strong winds and the stress associated with takeoffs and landing.

Non-compliance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations

Some of the airlines involved in accidents are known to have flouted the stringent rules that govern the various aspects of air travel, security of luggage, the conduct of pilots, and airports. These rules are meant for all stakeholders in the aviation industry and infringing them would amount to inviting a possible disaster. However, some airlines decide to overlook them either partially or in totality which at times has resulted in catastrophes. Assessment carried out on several accidents has pointed out non-compliance which has endangered the lives of hundreds of passengers along with the crew and also the people on the ground. A number of industrial players have been found to circumvent regulations by outsourcing aircraft maintenance and inspection services to cut costs. They only ensure the minimum precautions have been taken into consideration which has an effect of compromising the safety of the aircraft and those on board.

Control tower errors

Miscommunications by the air traffic controllers have occurred with terrible consequences to both the planes and the passengers on board. The traffic controllers are mandated to coordinate various aircraft and pilots in order to prevent collisions from occurring. However, situations have occurred where inaccurate or unreliable signals about weather conditions, landing instructions, and runway positions have been given causing accidents. Due to the fact that pilots rely heavily on the information received from the aircraft controllers, unreliable or inaccurate information has adverse effects on the decision-making processes of the crew. This means that errors on their part can be detrimental to the safety of the plane including the passengers on board. Such errors are known to have resulted in crashes and collisions of aircraft in the airports.

Poor regulation of the aviation industry

The deregulation of the aviation industry led to the deterioration of the safety standards of the industry (Rose 75). This was originally initiated to achieve some economic policy objectives in the industry. As a result some private airlines relaxed the regulatory standards leading to declining in safety of the aircraft and the associated services. This poses a threat not only to the travelers but also to the crew and the companies. Overrelaxation of the key rules leads to some companies neglecting the safety precautions to maximize their gains at the expense of passenger safety. Many gullible companies have been known to put their economic interests ahead of the satisfaction of the customers which is further compromising the safety standards of the industry.

The poor system design and mismanagement

The joint security arrangement between the three stakeholders resulted in lack of ownership of the program resulting in laxity in surveillance. This poked holes in the system that could be exploited by malicious groups to inflict serious damage into the country. Comprehensive screening could have averted sneaking of any dangerous weapons but lack of motivation due to weak supervision of the screening agents resulted in ease of penetration of these weapons and other explosives without detection. FAA largely failed to implement performance standards leading to laxity in execution of duties by officers. All studies carried out prior to 2001 pointed out to poor regulatory standards of FAA which exposed the whole system to infiltration by the enemy as happened in 2001 Al Qaeda attack.

Inadequate investment in security

There was inadequate investment in security infrastructure prior to 2001. The existing technologies at the time were decaying and could not be relied upon to provide adequate security to the airport and the airlines. This presented a heavy challenge in the midst of advancement in modern crime. Criminals were quickly learning to find their ways around the existing systems thus necessitating a quick overhaul of the system. However, the existing security arrangement was not flexible to changes and lacked the drive to institute lasting solutions to militate against any potential dangers. This caused redundancy in the security systems rendering the systems ineffective. Since most of the financing was provided by the airlines and airports, they obviously opted for the least expensive option of security provision hence compromising the quality of security standards.

Loopholes in the airport security

Security loopholes in airports have been exploited by terrorists and other malicious groupings with grief consequences. The world over, airplanes have been hijacked over time with terrible results. This is what culminated in the September 11 disaster where Al Qaeda terrorists managed to infiltrate the US security to gain access to the airplanes carrying dangerous weapons. The height of insecurity is when the terrorist manages to sneak weapons to the airplanes hence exposing vulnerability of the past security arrangements. The crash of aircraft into WTO and Pentagon were not isolated cases as it has happened before with other airlines especially with the infamous Lockerbie bombing disaster where an airplane was exploded mid-air leading to heavy casualties. This led to the loss of confidence in the previous security arrangement that was dominated by Federal Airport administration, airports, and airlines. Some of the weaknesses noted in the system included:

Easy accessibility to airport controls. Tests carried out at various airports revealed that unauthorized access to airports was relatively easy which increased the risk of the airport systems. Investigating agents using counterfeit law enforcement identification badges easily gained access to restricted areas that are often referred to as secure areas. They managed to penetrate security barriers into the airports and walk to the departure gates without any escort. The agents accessed secure areas in 68% of the trial periods boarding aircrafts 117 times. This indeed amounted to serious breach of the airport security.
Weaknesses in the screening processes of passengers and luggage. Tests done by FAA in 1987 revealed that screeners missed potentially harmful objects by 20% in all the tests carried out which was significantly worrying. Screening deteriorated onwards until 2001 when the systems were revamped to seal loopholes that were becoming costly to many nations especially after the events of September 11 attacks which exposed their unreliability. Modern technology since then has been integrated into the systems to boost their performance especially their capacity to detect security infiltrations.

Improving security standards

Industrial coordination

Coordination of all the key stakeholders of the aviation industry will be vital for effective improvement of the safety standards. Concerted efforts will need to be undertaken in order to bring all the industrial players on board so as to facilitate achievement of high levels of safety standards. However, all efforts need to be cost-effective while maximizing the intended benefits. In these economic turbulent times, it will make little sense to introduce a strategy that will depress the revenues of the firms. Such a move will obviously fail to lead to non-compliance by the industrial players. In such scenarios, the airlines will result skirting around the regulations to avoid the extra costs imposed upon them. By unilaterally imposing rules, the compliance levels will tend to be slow or flouted altogether leading to failure. We can borrow from IATA’s goal of ensuring that aviation security standards are mutually accepted by the stakeholders in the industry (IATA 3). Apart from ensuring passenger safety, the strategy will also help to minimize the negative perception by the customers and improve the flow of cargo thereby restoring confidence to the industry.

Integrating security management system

This system will provide an opportunity to maximize efficiency through introduction of a risk-based strategy to boost the security standards of the airline. This method of implementing aviation security is usually performance-based leading to a faster achievement of the intended objectives. It allows the implementation of the most cost-effective and sound security precautions and framework within the managerial structure. This further makes sure that security is managed as part of the organizational operational processes. This will mean working in close coordination with the airlines, airports, and the government. IATA has already gone on the ground by conducting training on the security management processes for airlines globally. However, the system ought to be tailor-made to suit different environments of various countries. This is because different countries have varied security needs depending on their locations.

Harmonization of the security systems

Each firm has got its own internal security system that it applies in its in-house processes. These plans ought to be integrated in order to avoid friction and to achieve uniform goals. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, there were rafts of individual measures that were developed that were very rigid becoming very hard to amend. This is why it is important to negotiate with the government in order to seek ways of harmonizing the systems. Even harder is the fact that there lacks harmony on the global scale, a problem that causes disunity in strategies. This process will have to be synchronized to succeed in implementation of the system. Screening of passengers and their cargo will be stepped up using the latest technology without necessarily inconveniencing them by adopting a more customer-friendly approach. These approaches have gained prominence since the 9-11 attack.

Installation of aircraft safety equipment

These have become standard features in most modern aircraft especially Boeing and airbus which place particular emphasis on their use on their aircraft. These have included among others evacuation slides to assist travelers to make their way out in case there is an occurrence of an emergency (Devine 1). Others include improvement of durability of the performance of turbine engines and use of computerized auto-recovery systems in aircraft. The landing gear has also been improved to improve the security standards of the airplanes.

Conclusion

The drastic decline in commercial airline security and the consequent rise in the rates of accidents were largely a factor in the decline of the security standards at the airports. The reason for the decline in security standards was mainly due to inadequate investment in security, infrastructure, and the weak security arrangement between FAA, the airports, and airlines which did not give clear mandate as to who would be in charge of the security system leading to lack of ownership of the program. This in turn led to poor supervision of airport staff and relaxed compliance with security regulations by the airlines. As a result, there was a marked breach of security and a rise in the rate of accidents among the airlines.

Works cited

Bowen D. Brent., Lu, Chien-tsung. “Measuring the safety performance of 10 major air carriers in the United States”, the airline safety report (1997-2000). Web.

Devine, Joseph. “Causes of Airplane Accidents”. EzineArticles.com. 2009. Web.

FAA. Aerospace Forecasts: 2001-2012. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2001.

Gellman Research Association (GRA). “A Report on Issues Related to Public Interest in Aviation Safety Data”. Nasdac, 1997. Web.

Hedlund, Baum. “Accident causes”, Airlnecrash-lawyer, 2009. Web.

IATA. “Turning challenges into opportunities”. Airlines International, 2009. Web.

National Transportation Safety Board. Annual Review of General Aviation Accident Data 2005. Publication Type NTSB/ARG 2005. Washington, DC. Web.

Rose L. Nancy. “Fear of flying?” Economic analysis of air safety, 1992. Web.

Wiegmann A. Douglas., Shappell A. Scott. “Human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents: Applications of the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS)”. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. Vol. 72 No.11. 2001. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!