Cover Page

The accident involving Ken and the flight crash should not have happened. Ken was a new

worker at the airport and he was not authorized to drive on some parts of the runway. However,

the duty manager asked him to go across the runway through the area he was restricted from. As

he thought that he had enough experience. Ken was driving across the runway when there was a

miscommunication due to his inexperience that resulted in an accident killing 5 people and

damaging a plane and nearby property. The incident as a whole had two human factor failure

attributes. First, the responsible parties took the wrong approach to land under bad weather

(Bejou et al, 1996). Second, Ken made a skill-based error by failing to understand that he was

not the one who was given the direction of “proceed”. The two errors fall under the first level of

the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Aircraft accidents are rare,

which makes this mode of transport the safest in contemporary times. However, aircraft

accidents occur in some cases. According to the HFACS, such accidents occur due to a number

of issues like organizational influences, unsafe acts, unsafe supervision, and preconditions for

unsafe acts (Min and Joo, 2016).

As mentioned in the case, Ken was not qualified enough to be driving on that area of the runway.

However, he is not the only one at fault in this case. The duty manager made a judgment call and

he knew that Ken was not qualified to be driving in that area. Hence, it is his fault as well (Katz

and Telebuyer, 2008). Since this is an integral part of aircraft operations, one needs to conduct

employee inspections systematically and apply meticulous and down-to-earth processes.

Inspections involve steps and processes and require analyses of reports from the different tasks

required for aircraft operation. As an inspector, one is tasked to determine the level of

qualification of any given employee. Also, an aircraft inspection is an important activity that

ranges from merely “walking around” to a meticulous inspection by way of disassembling the
parts through complicated inspection tools and technique. An inspection system requires reports

and investigations conducted by mechanics, information from the pilot or co-pilot in charge of

the aircraft, and reports from other personnel involved. The ultimate aim is to make an aircraft

free of any accident. Irresponsible and disorganized inspection of employees as well as aircrafts

will result into a bad aircraft condition that might cause accident (Puentes, 2011). Same is the

case with the incident caused by Ken. Aircraft is scheduled for inspection if it has accumulated

certain flight hours, or a situation based on calendar inspection. Calendar inspection is an

efficient type of management program since components have to be replaced based on the

number of hours the aircraft has performed. Preparation for inspection involves a lot of

paperwork and availability of information as reference point. Other publications have to be

accessed and read as reference guide (Fischer et al, 2008). Information from the makers of the

aircraft is also important. We consult the aircraft logbook when looking for available data about

the aircraft. The historical information of the aircraft is presented here so that when there is any

incident about the aircraft, it should be present in the logbook. If there were incidents involving

the aircraft, one can get firsthand information from its maintenance history. The findings and

observation will also be a part of the logbook. A significant part of inspections at the airports is

the use of checklists which list the parts that will be inspected and the steps to be undertaken.

The use of the checklist will enhance efficiency (Kugler and Strahilevitz, 2017).

The most outstanding human factor failure is decision error, which falls under the broad category

of the HFACS’ level 1 of unsafe acts. This human factor failure lies under the error subdivision.

Ken was the one who made this error. He should have refused when his duty manager asked him

to drive through the restricted area as he had no qualification to do so (Chappell, 2017).

Therefore, the cause, in this case, was the crew’s failure to make the appropriate decision to
avoid causing such an incident that resulted in various kinds of losses. The role fo weather needs

to be factored in as well. Initially, the weather was favorable, and arguably, the flight crew had

all the reasons to believe that they could get to the runway before the thunderstorm. However,

the thunderstorm escalated rapidly, and at this point, the flight crew should have changed their

course of action. Unfortunately, the crew did not make this critical decision, which led to the

accident. The second human factor failure is a skill-based error, which also falls under unsafe

acts. Ken as well as his duty manger made such an error too. The duty manager must not have

asked Ken to drive through the area he knew he had no clearance for. Also, Ken failed to

understand the communication and caused a massive accident (Madsen et al, 2016). This aspect

reveals a lack of requisite skills to handle such a scenario. Conventionally, spoilers play a critical

role in landing, and they should deploy in advance for safe landing. Therefore, the cause, in this

case, was the pilots’ inability to spread the spoilers. The effect of this shortcoming was the

resultant runway overrun of the aircraft. The report concludes, “The lack of spoiler deployment

was the single most important factor in the flight crew’s inability to stop the accident airplane

within the available runway length”. If the crew had the requisite skills, they could have

surmounted the rough weather challenge to land the aircraft safely. The decision error to land

under bad weather probably created panic, which unveiled the flight crew’s lack of skills to

handle such a situation. Therefore, the chain started with poor decision making, which led to

improper handling of the aircraft during landing, thus ultimately causing an accident. Even

though air transport is the safest mode of transport in the 21st Century, aircraft accidents occur at

times. The American Airlines Flight 1420 runway overrun during landing happened due to two

major human factor failures. The two factors fall under level 1 of the HFACS, viz. decision

errors, and skill-based errors, which are categorized under the errors section. The flight crew
should have changed their approach after realizing that the thunderstorm had escalated faster

than expected. In addition, the crew should have followed the set landing protocols (Blackwood,

2015).

The inspection is provided a systematic approach which covers every step of the way (Macrae,

2007). Every component and section of the aircraft is given due attention. In other words, there is

no stone unturned in the inspection or investigation. Any negative report from the pilot and crew

is given attention and investigated (Epstein et al, 2019). So, an inspection is also an

investigation. Safety and inspection practices for the airports need to be in line with the

provisions and suggestions of FAA Handbook. The paper has already discussed above some

provisions of the FAA handbook while the Advisory Circular is a must in the next paragraph.

The advisory circular emphasizes inspection of wooden aircraft which are mostly old-designed

aircraft. When inspecting wooden aircraft, activities should be in conformity with Section 3 of

AC 43.13-1B. Wood decay occurs when fungi develops in wood (Flin and Arbuthnot, 2017).

Decayed wood has particular characteristics like softness and swelling and its color has changed.

The ultimate solution for this problem is replacement. When inspecting wooden aircraft, it must

be in a well-ventilated place. Preliminary inspection has to be done before removing the covers.

The presence of wood deterioration should be a primary concern in the inspection. Pre- and post-

flight inspections are recorded in the aircraft’s logbook. The results of inspections and reports

become a part of the logbook for reference by other inspectors and maintenance crews. Focusing

on the history of the aircraft through the “eyes” of the logbook helps the job of an effective

inspector. Airlines have their own maintenance teams and inspectors to improve aircraft

airworthiness. Each aircraft has its own maintenance program developed according to

manufacturer’s specifications and instructions (Monaghan, 2011). This maintenance program is

approved by airport authorities and by the government agency responsible for aircraft inspection

and maintenance. Each program directs the maintenance schedules for a particular aircraft

inspection; the schedules include the parts and engines to be inspected. The inspections done for

each aircraft from the different airlines are subject for scrutiny and approval by the government

agency. According to airport authorities, each hour spent in flight will have an equivalent of

several hours’ maintenance. Each maintenance session includes a series of inspections and

procedures which would depend on the time the aircraft spent on air and the various activities

functions and activities the aircraft was involved (Lawton, 2017).

Personal judgment and critical thinking have to be included in my report and will become an

integral part of the logbook and history of maintenance of the aircraft. Ken must have abided by

these elements as well. Basically, the incident report is based on personal judgment and critical

thinking. Lives of passengers depend on the aircraft’s airworthiness and the inspector’s skill and

expertise. If the inspector recorded wrong judgment, it could be a cause of accident. Critical

thinking and honest judgment have to be molded with experience and continuous research and

education. This is a serious job requiring analytical skills allowing no mistakes (Gregson et al,

2015).

There are several recommendations that can be proposed here in this case. The first

recommendations is to fully ensure compliance with the CFR regulations. The Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) is a mandate to provide order in flight operations. The FAA has the sole

authority to correct mistakes in aircraft parts and engines. Unsafe situations may exist due to

poor design, insufficient maintenance, and many other causes. 14CFR specifically pushes for the

regular scheduling of aircraft inspection depending on the specific functions the aircraft was

made. Inspections are performed before and after flying. But more meticulous inspections are
scheduled at least once every 12 months (Zafra and Maydell, 2018). For big commercial

airplanes it has to be after every 100 hours of flying. Two types of aircraft maintenance can be

conducted: one that is required for the purpose of issuing a type certification (TC) and another

issued by the Maintenance Review Board (MRB). These requirements are needed to provide

proof of the airworthiness of the aircraft. Aviation maintenance technicians are subject to human

factors or limitations while performing their job on repair and maintenance. Mistakes in

maintenance have been attributed to these human factors and the result is accident. Maintenance

people or technicians work in strenuous situations that, if not corrected, may result in errors in

maintenance. Their job requires a hundred percent attention to details. Being aware of these

human factors can improve their service, while managing time and situations must also be

applied. Human factors can be explained through some disciplines, like psychology, cognitive

science, and even modern medicine (Girasek and Olsen, 2009). Clinical psychology includes

knowledge, prevention and relief of stress or dysfunction in order to develop one’s personality.

Though the study is complex, it is understandable by ordinary individuals who are involved in

routine but hard tasks that require full attention. Aviation technicians and maintenance people

have to be taught how to address human factors, although they continuously learn through

experience. Technicians and people in the engineering department must be provided the best

training since they work in the harshest environment possible (Cortes, 2011). Technical people

are exposed to stress and fatigue amid a dangerous situation. They have to be trained in dealing

with difficult situations, in controlling their emotions, and in getting the job done with the least

mistake or error. As said earlier, human error and negligence are one of the major causes of

accidents. To reduce this, personnel have to be trained and conditioned in the course of the

performance of their tasks (Coy and Chiang, 2012). Everything in the flight line must have the
best safety measures to ensure that no accidents occur in the vicinity of the airport, or at least,

accidents are minimized to reduce costs and avoid sparing innocent lives. One other

recommendation prescribes that pilots carry with them and fill in the checklist provided in the

Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) as they go on duty in flying an aircraft. Airlines have

different maintenance programs for their aircraft. Each maintenance program is unique in the

sense that aircrafts encounter different problems in flight. The technique applied to ensure an

almost hundred percent safety is to conduct inspections before and after flight. Each inspection is

recorded in the aircraft’s history and logbook. Maintenance and replacement for each component

is also recorded for the next flight. Inspections are performed before and after flying. But more

meticulous inspections are scheduled at least once every 12 months. For big commercial

airplanes it has to be after every 100 hours of flying (Klenka, 2019).

References

Bejou, D., Edvardsson, B.O. and Rakowski, J.P., 1996. A critical incident approach to examining

the effects of service failures on customer relationships: the case of Swedish and US

airlines. Journal of Travel research, 35(1), pp.35-40.

Blackwood, L., 2015. Policing airport spaces: The Muslim experience of scrutiny. Policing: a

journal of policy and practice, 9(3), pp.255-264.

Chappell, S.L., 2017. 8 Using voluntary incident reports. Aviation psychology in practice, p.149.

Cortes, A.I., 2011. A Theory of False Cognitive Expectancies in Airline Pilots. Northcentral

University.

Coy, J.M. and Chiang, E.P., 2012. Are explicit baggage fees the answer to rising airline

operating costs. European Journal of Business Research, 12, pp.162-67.

Epstein, C.R., Forbes, J.M., Futter, C.L., Hosegood, I.M., Brown, R.G. and Van Zundert, A.A.,

2019. Frequency and clinical spectrum of in-flight medical incidents during domestic and

international flights. Anaesthesia and intensive care, 47(1), pp.16-22.

Fischer, J.W., Elias, B. and Kirk, R.S., 2008. US Airline Industry: Issues and Role of Congress.

Flin, R. and Arbuthnot, K., 2017. Incident command: Tales from the hot seat. Routledge.

Girasek, D.C. and Olsen, C.H., 2009. Airline passengers' alcohol use and its safety

implications. Journal of travel medicine, 16(5), pp.311-316.

Gregson, S., Hampson, I., Junor, A., Fraser, D., Quinlan, M. and Williamson, A., 2015. Supply

chains, maintenance and safety in the Australian airline industry. Journal of Industrial

Relations, 57(4), pp.604-623.

Katz, R.A., Telebuyer LLC, 2008. Videophone system for scrutiny monitoring with computer

control. U.S. Patent 7,319,477.

Klenka, M., 2019. Major incidents that shaped aviation security. Journal of transportation

security, 12(1-2), pp.39-56.

Kugler, M.B. and Strahilevitz, L.J., 2017. The Myth of Fourth Amendment Scrutiny. U. Chi. L.

Rev., 84, p.1747.

Lawton, T.C., 2017. Cleared for take-off: Structure and strategy in the low fare airline business.

Routledge.

Macrae, C., 2007. Analyzing near-miss events: risk management in incident reporting and

investigation systems. London, UK: Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation.

Madsen, P., Dillon, R.L. and Tinsley, C.H., 2016. Airline safety improvement through

experience with near‐misses: A cautionary tale. Risk analysis, 36(5), pp.1054-1066.

Min, H. and Joo, S.J., 2016. A comparative performance analysis of airline strategic alliances

using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 52, pp.99-110.

Monaghan, K.L., 2011. Examining the relationship between passenger airline aircraft

maintenance outsourcing and aircraft safety. Northcentral University.

Puentes, A., 2011. The manual flight skill of airline pilots.

Zafra, N. and Maydell, E., 2018. Facing the information void: A case study of Malaysia Airlines’

media relations and crisis communication during the MH370 disaster. Asia Pacific Public

Relations Journal, 19, pp.41-65.