Anti-Terrorism Security in Aviation Research Paper

As part of the research project proposal, the methodological framework is to conduct semi-structured interviews with respondents directly involved in the culture of anti-terrorist protection on board the aircraft. This approach is most appropriate for the purposes of the project, as it allows for primary data collection from direct participants in the aviation security process, helps to identify any patterns of respondents’ non-verbal behavior, and controls the mechanics of response collection (Arifin, 2018). Airline employees who are involved in civilian safety on board were chosen as the central audience for interview collection: this includes flight attendants, aircraft pilots, and mechanics who maintain the aircraft before and after the flight.

Ethics of Conducting Interviews

Because the proposed method of data collection, the interview, involves interaction with people, it requires ethical research. There are several requirements that must be met during this type of research (Engward et al., 2022). First, if the results of these interviews are to be used to validate the entire study, ethical approval is required of the participants (Central University Research Ethics Committee, 2020). Additionally, since the study may raise topics that are sensitive to the aviation industry, complete participant confidentiality must be maintained (Turcotte-Tremblay and Sween-Cadieux, 2018). Informed consent (template shown in Appendix A) from participants should also be obtained to ensure that respondents are fully aware of the goals and objectives of the study and are willing to participate. Thus, this study requires ethical regulations to ensure that all participants in the project process are protected.

Interview Questions

Since this method of data collection involves classifying respondents based on their role in the aviation industry (flight attendants, pilots, mechanics), it is suggested that the questions be divided into three categories. It should be noted that the questions listed below are not absolute, which means that minor deviations and additions in the course of the interview are possible. For flight attendants who constantly interact with passengers and perform the main activity during the flight, it is recommended to use the following questions:

• Is there a regulation regarding flight attendant behavior to prevent a terrorist threat from passengers?
• If a regulation exists, are flight attendants trained in these measures? Is the training systematic or a one-time training during the internship?
• What anti-terrorist security measures do you apply during the flight?
• Are there tangible differences in the implementation of anti-terrorist measures during takeoff, flight, and landing?
• What are the signs you might suspect that a passenger is providing a terrorist threat?
• If you suspect a passenger, what measures can you take during the flight?
• Do you use passenger profiling practices in your work?
• Do you go through a thorough security screening prior to boarding, and do you notice any deviations or indulgences in the context of that screening?

Questions that may be asked of flight pilots:

• Do you receive signals from flight attendants during the flight that there are potentially dangerous individuals among the passengers?
• In your practice, have there been instances where unauthorized persons have entered the cockpit? Given that this practice is prohibited, have you ever noticed any deviations from this? (Jenkins, 2020).
• Do you use sensors to record and monitor the movement of passengers on board the aircraft?
• Are you aware of any differences in the anti-terrorism security measures of different states when entering their airspace?
• What are your procedures when an explosive device or passenger posing a terrorist threat is detected on board?
• Do you undergo a thorough security check before boarding the aircraft, and do you notice any deviations or indulgences in the context of this check?

Questions for mechanics in charge of maintaining and equipping the aircraft:

• Do you conduct a complete inspection of the aircraft before you sign an operating approval?
• If you notice any foreign or foreign objects on board, including in the engineering structures of the aircraft, what is your action?
• Can you install any parts in the aircraft structure without the approval of the responsible party, such as the manager?
• Has it ever happened in your practice that you discovered a malfunction of the aircraft or the presence of any extraneous parts but did not report it to administration or that management ignored the problem?
• Have you ever had unauthorized people you do not know access to aircraft engineering?
• Do you go through a thorough safety check before boarding the plane, and do you notice any deviations or indulgences in the context of that check?

Timeline

As the initial statement implies, there is only one week for the interview, during which several aviation personnel of various professional backgrounds must be interviewed at once. To that end, three flight attendants are proposed to be interviewed on the first two days. The following two days should include three more interviews with aircraft pilots and the last two days of interviews with mechanics. In total, six days will be needed to collect the primary data and conduct all the interviews. In the next two weeks, it is suggested that the data collected to be analyzed using thematic content analysis.

Assumed Risks

This study has a significant risk associated with the very purpose of the project. Since the purpose of the study is to improve the culture of anti-terrorism security and the set of measures associated with it, the results of this project may be beneficial to terrorists who will consider the patterns of behavior by which they may be identified as potentially dangerous. In addition, there are risks in the study that respondent workers may be sanctioned for revealing sensitive aspects of their activities: this requires that complete anonymization of the data be observed, including the elimination of any opportunity to guess or learn the respondent’s name. In addition, there is a risk that respondents will not disclose all of the measures that are taken on board to ensure safety (Wicklander-Zulawski, 2020). In order to ensure the completeness of the information collected, it is necessary to organize the most comfortable atmosphere and convince participants that all data will be anonymized and hidden. There is also a risk in the so-called Hawthorne effect, which suggests deviations in the behavior of participants during interviews (Berthelot et al., 2019). Specifically, this effect indicates that interest in the experiment or a new environment for participants may cause respondents to indicate incompletely correct answers or to deliberately distort information in order to appear better in front of the researcher. Thus, there are a large number of risks associated with conducting this project. In the meantime, these risks are manageable and thus can be easily minimized by using appropriate management strategies.

Reference List

Arifin, S.R.M. (2018) ‘Ethical considerations in qualitative study’, International Journal of Care Scholars, 1(2), pp. 30-33.

Berthelot, J.M., Nizard, J. and Maugars, Y. (2019) ‘The negative Hawthorne effect: explaining pain overexpression’, Joint Bone Spine, 86(4), pp. 445-449.

Central University Research Ethics Committee (2020) Conducting research interviews. Web.

Engward, H., Goldspink, S., Iancu, M., Kersey, T. and Wood, A. (2022) ‘Togetherness in separation: practical considerations for doing remote qualitative interviews ethically’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, pp. 1-10.

Jenkins, B. M. (2020) ‘The terrorist threat to transportation targets and preventive measures’, in Schmid, A.P. (ed.) (2020) Handbook of terrorism prevention and preparedness. McLean: International Centre for Counterterrorism (ICCT), pp. 790-815.

NCPI (2021) Sample informed consent form. Web.

Turcotte-Tremblay, A.M. and Sween-Cadieux, M. (2018) ‘A reflection on the challenge of protecting confidentiality of participants while disseminating research results locally’, BMC Medical Ethics, 19(1), pp. 5-11.

Wicklander-Zulawski (2020) Interview and interrogation training: withholding evidence. Web.

Appendix A