Aviation Safety Program - Term Paper Example

Summary In past few decades there has been a gradual increase in the number of airline crashes. Due to this reason, a new approach to air safety is been used by aircraft manufacturers and pilot training institutions. Such Aviation Safety Programs include specialized training of take-off or landing which is the reason for large number of air crash incidences all over the world. Secondly, pilot error has been found to cause approximately 70% of air accidents, hence more attention is being paid to pilot training. Moreover, Satellite mapping of the earth’s surface and use of Satellite positioning systems will also improve air-traffic control. Aviation Safety Program Previous years saw a big rise in the number of, jet-airliner crashes. Worse lies ahead. That is spurring a new approach to air safety. When the manufacturers of the greatest numbers of aircrafts mentions that there could be a major air crash once a week by end of 2010, then the time is arrived to start worrying: Boeing has no commercial interest in exaggerating the threat that hangs over aviation. But Boeings bleak forecast has been echoed by others, including the head of Americas Federal Aviation Administration. The steady improvement in airline safety is about to come to an end. In this paper potential areas of improvement and how Aviation Safety Programs can gain its own advantage in the aviation industry will be discussed. Last decade was a particularly bad one for air disasters. Amongst a lot it saw the ValuJet crash in a Florida swamp (killing it), the explosion that blew flight TWA 800 out of the sky off Long Island (killing 230) and a disastrous mid-air collision near New Delhi in India (killing 349) On average, a jet was written off every 9.8 days. As per statistics gathered by Air claims, an aviation-insurance consultancy, there were 75 accidents that completely broke commercial aircraft (jets and small turboprops). These figures include the former Soviet Union. Crashes of big jet airliners-the kind nervous flyers have nightmares about-have raised from an average of 20.6 a year in the 1990s to 25 in the West, and from six a year in the 1990s to 12 in the former Soviet Union. That pushes up the fatality figures. Air claims suggests that "We may now be seeing the early stages of a gradual increase in the annual number of total losses, with the average for the 1990s being generally some10% up on the late 1970s and the 1980s." (Lengrath, 4) Before cancelling their next trip, nervous passengers ought to bear in mind that a rise in the absolute number of fatal crashes is not surprising, given that air travel has risen eightfold since the middle of last century. Moreover, big crashes have to be seen in the context of 12,000 jet airliners in the sky, making over lsm flights and carrying about 1.3 billion passengers every year. The overall accident rate per trip has fallen, from 50 in a million in the 1960s to just over one in a million today; the accident rate per kilometer flown is also lower than it was 20 years ago. But there is still a worry. These accident rates, which fell dramatically in the 1960s and early 1970s, have barely budged in the past ten years. Since air travel is growing by around 6% a year, simple arithmetic suggests that the absolute number of crashes is bound to rise. That will certainly frighten travelers, and may check the growth in air travel. "There is no point in telling the people how remarkably safe air transport is if they see television film or read of a major crash somewhere in the world at the rate of one a week," says Pierre Jeanniot, director of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). (Wells, 320) Travelers already react to what little information they are given on air safety: witness the way that American passengers deserted cheap no-frills airlines in the wake of the ValuJet disaster. They have gradually returned (thanks partly to reassuring changes in procedures by the airlines). But ValuJets planes are barely half full-against an industry average of around 70%. As the number of crashes increases, travelers may look harder at the statistics. Airlines and aircraft companies like to claim that commercial aviation is one of the safest ways to travel. That is absolutely right, if safety is measured in terms of deaths per distance travelled. By this measure, one British study shows that flying is 176 times safer than walking, almost 15 times safer than travelling by car and about 300 times safer than riding a motorbike. However, the figures are skewed by the huge distances covered safely by air travel. Thanks to the reliability of airframes and of modern jet engines (which have fewer moving parts to go wrong than did the old piston engines), accidents rarely happen during cruising. But large numbers of accidents happen on take-off or landing, even though these operations occupy only about 6% of flight time. Recalculate the figures per number of trips, and cars look 12 times safer than aero planes, and only motorbikes look more dangerous. Even the more neutral measure of the fatality rate per man-hour of exposure puts cars and aircraft on a par. How not to crash Different aircraft have different safety records. All the same, the awful prospect of one big crash a week is galvanizing air-safety regulators and the aviation industry into action. There are three main ways to make the numbers look better: find new and safer technologies; raise safety standards in the airlines of developing countries and the former Soviet Union; and improve the training of pilots. The steep fall in the airline accident rate since past 20 years has been due mainly to the development of the jet engine. No such dramatic technical fixes are now on the horizon, although there are a few advances that will help. For instance, satellite mapping of the earths surface (mostly for military purposes) means that all new aircraft may soon be fitted with software that will tell a pilot if he is heading for a high mountain, and perhaps even be programmed to make the plane climb over the obstacle automatically. Satellite positioning systems will also improve air-traffic control. Improving the safety of the worlds most unsafe airlines is harder. American and European regulators moan about the low standards that tend to prevail in South America, Africa, the former Soviet Union and China. Indeed, the British Foreign Office recently advised Her Majestys subjects not to take internal flights in Russia. Germany has been considering banning some foreign airlines from picking up passengers in Germany since a Turkish airliner, leased to a Dominican company, crashed in the Dominican Republic, killing 189 mainly German holidaymakers. The trouble is that the standards agreed under the international air safety regime established by the 1944 Chicago Convention are too vague and feeble for todays crowded skies. For instance, they stipulate that airlines should limit the number of hours pilots can fly-but not whether the limit should be ten or 23 hours out of every 24. Most western countries have local standards much higher than those set by the Chicago rules. Leveling off. Fatal accidents per million aircraft landings. Down to earth Scheduled air services. Those rules allow countries to interfere in another countrys airline-safety standards only when they have evident reasons to be anxious. That allows intervention when dangerous airlines fly into relatively safe countries. Americas Federal Aviation Administration robustly bans foreign airlines from flying into the United States unless they let the FAA supervise them. Another route to safety is to improve pilot training. Airlines now realize that they must give more intensive training to pilots who switch to automated cockpits. Indeed, for a time in the late 1990s it looked as though technology was causing more accidents than it prevented because of muddles over whether the pilot or the computerized flight-management system (fly-by wire) was in control. An international study, led by the FA, concluded that there had been 24 accidents or serious incidents caused by such problems. Hence the focus and dedication to safety will be highly supported by pilot training, and will make them distinct among their competitors. As pilot error has been found to cause approximately 70% of air accidents, more attention should be given to pilot training. "The most excellent pilots are not the traditional macho men anymore with the best physical motor skills," says Michael Willett, safety director at the Civil Aviation Authority in Britain. (Goh, 120) "The best ones are those having the most superior information-management skills of operating aircrafts with most modern and digital cockpits." (Lengarth, 3) At present, pilot training and testing rightly concentrates on reducing errors: pilots are tested on their ability to fly with no mistakes, following correct procedures. But to achieve a further reduction in accidents pilots also need to be tested on their ability to overcome the consequences of the inevitable human errors. Until now, the emphasis of air safety has been reactive. If an aircraft crashes, a painstaking investigation attempts to pinpoint the cause and the regulators then order changes to the design of an aircraft or to the way it is flown or maintained. Now there is an attempt to apply quality management techniques, as used in other industries, in air safety. International data on safety problems, near-misses and accidents are being pooled. Airline companies aim to halve the accident rate over the next ten years by, for instance, bringing in outsiders to audit their safety-management procedures. When these steps will be taken, aviation will surely get closer to its target of zero accidents. Works Cited Goh, Jeffrey. Problems of Transnational Regulation: A Case Study of Aircraft Noise Regulation in the European Community. Transportation Law Journal. University of Denver, 2007, 100-112. Lengrath, R. Cool Wings in Winter, Cambridge Publishers, 2006, pg 2- 4. Wells, T. A. Commercial Aviation Safety, McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing; 3rd edition, 2001, 315- 320. Read More