Introduction
The airline industry has recorded robust global expansion since its inception in the 17th century. Primarily, the rapid expansion in air travel has been fueled by technological development alongside deliberate resource investment in research, training, and study on aircraft operations. As a result, the number of passengers who use air travel globally is estimated at 100 billion on international and domestic aircraft (Barnett, 2020). Amidst this growth, there are emerging concerns about passenger safety while using this most efficient mode of transport (Barnett, 2020). Airline incidents such as the Action News Chopper 6 Helicopter and the Oklahoma Plane Crash that occurred in 2023 illustrate that aircraft, like other modes of transportation, are prone to accidents that risk passengers’ lives.
In the wake of the tremendous growth of the airline industry, regulatory authorities have stepped in to ensure safety and compliance for all stakeholders. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), formed in 1958, is the largest regulator of the US airline Industry. Its mandate spans air traffic control, setting quality standards for airlines, and ensuring certification for airline service providers.
Under the FAA, numerous programs, such as the Aviation Safety Action Program, ensure aircraft are flight-worthy and safe for passengers (Karanikas, Chionis & Plioutsias, 2020). By and large, this mandate has been effectively implemented in international and large airlines. However, research indicates a significant safety gap among smaller airlines. This is attributed to a lack of data management processes to define accident causes, poor aircraft inspection, and a lack of advanced telecommunications systems to improve security. The United States Aviation Safety Programs have achieved significant goals in improving safety for large airlines, goals that could be extended to smaller aircraft.
Literature Review
The Work of Aviation Safety Programs in America
Growing research demonstrates the indispensable work of aviation safety programs in the United States, particularly in mitigating fatal air crashes. One program that has overhauled how the US airline industry operates is the NASA Aviation Safety Program. The Presidential Commission of Aviation Safety and Security set to reduce deadly accidents by 80% in 1997 (Stolzer et al., 2023). The government brought together academic researchers, airline industry stakeholders, and operators.
NASA organized research on six fronts to create an in-depth understanding of how aircraft operate so as to devise preventive measures for accidents. The six research areas included Aviation System Modelling, Weather Information Communication, Human Error Modelling, Maintenance Factors, Turbulence Detection, and Accident Prevention. By 2011, data indicated a steady decline in exposure to accidents and the number of fatal accidents by aircraft, as shown in the table below.
Table 1 – Aircraft Incidents between 2002-2011
Note. The table shows aircraft incidents by nature and cause in the United States between 2002 and 2011. From “Safety Management Systems in Aviation,” by A. Stolzer, R. Sumwalt & J. Goglia, 2023, CRC Press. Copyright 2023 by CRC Press.
As shown in Table 1 above, the number of accidents caused by individual factors had dropped significantly due to mitigation measures in the six research areas.
Another program central to aviation safety is the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). This program aligns with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to encourage airline employees to report safety incidents for record-keeping and data accuracy. The program incorporates input from the employees’ labor union to provide incentives for employees to serve as gatekeepers in the airline industry. The program has developed policy guidelines and best practices to help pilots and cabin crew respond more effectively to emergencies (Lee et al., 2020). As a result of aligned efforts, there has been a downward trend in aviation accidents, fatal injuries, severe injuries, and minor injuries over the last 30 years, as shown in Figure 1 below.
Note. The figure shows the number of airline-related incidents (aviation crashes, fatal injuries, serious injuries, and minor injuries) between 1985 and 2015. From “Safety Management Systems in Aviation,” by A. Stolzer, R. Sumwalt & J. Goglia, 2023, CRC Press. Copyright 2023 by CRC Press.
Technological Advances
Growing research demonstrates that the United States Aviation Safety Programs have recorded commendable milestones in improving aviation safety. According to Stolzer et al. (2023), the primary mandate of Aviation Safety Programs in the United States is to eliminate airline accidents and incidents. The efficacy of this mission is measured by the number of airline accidents recorded annually.
In this context, there is a need to study the number of airline passengers over the years. As the study indicates, in 2021, the number of airline passengers in the US was 2.3 billion, down from 4.5 billion in 2020 (Stolzer et al., 2023). While the plummet was attributed to the pandemic, some accidents disrupted air transport, a preferred mode of travel. In 2023, passenger numbers increased to 4.6 billion, indicating that more people resumed international travel. The large number of air passengers is the primary driver of the need to implement measures to improve aircraft safety.
The US Aviation Safety Programs have actualized their mandate by integrating technological advancements. The FAA initiated the requirement that all aircraft must have pressurized cabins and radiotelegraphs, scaling VHF and UHF to ensure optimal operation. Recently, large airlines have been able to install artificial intelligence to support real-time communication (Stolzer et al., 2023). Additionally, the programs have implemented continuous improvement measures to streamline the performance of aircraft parts, thereby curtailling incidents. The literature indicates that the importance of Aviation Safety Programs is evident in remotely piloted aircraft systems, replacing traditionally operated aerial systems.
Crucial technological improvements in aircraft provide confidence that airlines can provide safe transport services. The International Civil Aviation Organization approves of the programs’ activities aimed at improving safety. In 2023, ICAO funded bibliometric research on the causes of aircraft accidents. Through intensive studies, researchers assess the contributions of factors such as minimum take-off weight, air traffic, and compliance issues to aircraft safety. Established airlines like Boeing invest expertise and capital resources in data analysis systems, resulting in informed mitigation measures against accidents (Stolzer et al., 2023). On the other hand, smaller aircraft have to grapple with allocating maintenance resources, with most experiencing constraints in technological data analysis aimed at safety improvement.
Human Factors and Safety Culture
Research shows that Aviation Safety Programs have been instrumental in improving safety by stringent regulation of human factors in the airline industry. Theoretically, human factors are the second-leading cause of aircraft accidents and incidents, after technical issues. These factors include intimidation, distraction, differences among the cabin crew, and lack of respect.
According to the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB), Aviation Safety Programs focus on improving human factors to reinforce safety (Fuentes & Chung, 2023). The NTSB board cites numerous incidents in which human factors caused accidents in the recent past and several years ago. One of these is Air France Flight 477, in which the pilot mistakenly disconnected the autopilot, causing a loss of control. In a separate incident, the investigation revealed that the pilot’s lack of experience caused the Boeing 737 crash. The safety programs stipulate regulations to mitigate human factors that jeopardize passenger safety on aircraft.
The FAA has been at the forefront of mitigating the role of human factors in airplane crashes in the US. There are stringent requirements, including the requirement that pilots undergo medical check-ups to ensure they are in good health to fly aircraft (Gaines et al., 2020). The requirements prompt aircraft management to conduct regular flight checks to ensure aircraft are in the best condition before takeoff. Along with these, safety programs are keen to ensure that pilots have valid licenses that are only renewed after regular training on emerging technologies and advances in their industry. With all these requirements, aircraft operators must document the results of check-ups for analysis and reference in case of incidents.
In line with this, Aviation Safety Programs work towards cultivating a culture of safety and a conducive work environment for pilots and cabin crew. The FAA has primary requirements for flight durations and rest periods for pilots and cabin crew members. In the United States, the FAA mandates that commercial pilots who work on a single-pilot operation have a maximum of 10 hours on a flight operation. Pilots working on a two-pilot operation can fly only for 8 hours.
In terms of rest periods, pilots must take enough rest time to keep them alert during their next flight. Rest periods are recommended for commercial pilots to last at least 10 hours (Bastola, 2020). As an extension, Aviation Safety Programs cultivate an environment of safety by dealing with factors that cause pilot fatigue and exhaustion. One is ensuring that pilots are compensated to motivate and discourage them from taking overtime or part-time operations. With such measures, the safety programs stay on course in cultivating safe work practices free of human-related errors in aircraft.
Note. A picture of a two-pilot operation at work to demonstrate contingency measures related to human causes of airline incidents. From “Aviation Safety Is Our Collective Responsibility (n.d.),” by Litson & Associates. Copyright 2023 by Litson & Associates.
Compliance
Aviation Safety Programs have enhanced safety through aircraft manufacturing, maintenance, and operation compliance. According to research by Transport Economics, airplane safety programs enhance safety through training compliance. In the United States, each pilot and cabin crew member must train and earn the Certificate of Demonstrated Proficiency before taking up duties on a flight. The Federal Aviation Regulations Part 121 affects training compliance on personal licensing, flight crew licensing, ATCO Licensing, and Medical Fitness Licensing (Stolzer et al., 2023). The requirement to have all the licenses is one crucial step towards safety as it ensures each professional possesses the knowledge and the right skills to deliver expert services on board, especially during emergencies.
Besides this, safety programs are keen to foster hardware compliance on the aircraft to heighten fault detection on aircraft. According to Georgiev (2021), Aviation Safety Programs require technical compliance in installing ground proximity warning devices to sound alerts at the earliest onset of an incident. Along with this, the programs have seen airlines implement cockpit and data recorders for better communication and coordination to curtail the escalation of aircraft while in the air (Georgiev, 2021). The requirement for aircraft to install sophisticated flight simulators is a preventive measure in the case of adverse weather and unforeseeable circumstances that could lead to accidents. With extensive compliance requirements, airlines stay prepared for emergencies through communication and operational features.
Safety Gaps to Address for Small Airlines
The above literature demonstrates that aviation safety programs have a track record of tackling safety issues. However, as aforementioned, smaller aircraft need to catch up in adopting technologies and organizational practices that keep accidents at bay. The National Transportation Safety Board reports that the positive impacts have yet to be realized in smaller airlines (Stolzer et al., 2023). This is because of increased incidents resulting from a lack of situational awareness, poor crew coordination, and complex man-machine interface.
Regarding the lack of situational awareness, the United Airlines Flight 173 crash exemplified panic caused by a lack of situational awareness (Zhang & Mahadevan, 2021). During the aircraft crash, the cabin crew focused on fixing the landing gear issue and failed to notice the low fuel. Compared to large airlines, smaller airlines can only employ staff with fewer years of experience in situational awareness.
According to research, airline accidents are attributed to random factors inherent in airline parts or that emerge from human factors. Some examples of random, unpredictable factors include bad weather, engine mishaps, and poor judgment, where a steering pilot has to make the ultimate judgment (Stolzer et al., 2023). The fact that these factors are largely external and may converge at any point in time makes it difficult, especially for smaller companies, to prevent incidents and accidents fully.
Positive outcomes of aviation safety programs have yet to be realized in crew coordination for smaller aircraft. The Air Florida Flight 90 crash exemplified human conflict as the pilot raised the alarm but was ignored by his cabin crew (Stolzer et al., 2023). This incident resulted in a plane crash over the Potomac River with hundreds of fatalities. Several other incidents where the pilot conflicts with the cabin crew have been recorded in smaller airlines than large airlines (Weldon et al., 2021). Pilots and cabin crew need proper training at the core of the issue.
There are dangerous gaps in the knowledge of situational management and proper aircraft operations, causing misunderstanding. While investing in large airlines to improve organizational dynamics, the Aviation Safety Programs have set guidelines on emergency response while on board. This training would improve professional relationships and operational management in smaller airlines, just like in large aircraft.
The management bodies of smaller airlines are fraught with managerial issues, particularly the complexities of analyzing the causes of aircraft accidents. According to the NTSB, proper mitigation of accidents and incidents is anchored in the ability to identify the causes. Unlike large airlines with data management systems, smaller airlines operate with few aircraft, making it impossible to collect sufficient data for analysis (Gao et al., 2021). They need more data management professionals to collect data due to the use of systems that are phased out and unable to record and transmit real-time data. These limitations are detrimental to safety protocols on various levels.
For one, they make poor decisions to fix possible risks or predisposing factors in the airlines. The need for data management frameworks creates a barrier to providing necessary training to aircraft operators. Lastly, they cause improper allocation of resources as there is no accurate problem detection.
Recommendations
Given the above, it is inarguable that aviation safety programs have made tangible progress toward enhancing safety for aircraft in America. Enormous transformations are evident in larger airlines, including increased uptake of technology, better training, compliance measures, and good cabin crew relations that work towards safety. On the other hand, smaller airlines are yet to catch up in compliance with and implementation of all safety requirements set by the programs.
In light of this, it is recommended that the programs forge global collaborations to input capital resources into the airlines (Adjekum & Tous, 2020). For instance, airlines can collaborate with data management organizations to improve risk assessment, forecasting, and record-keeping to better prepare for incidents. They could also collaborate with global technology providers, forging partnerships that will enable them to fix the systems that safeguard passenger safety.
Safety programs should also factor in the impediments to smaller aircraft’s compliance. For the most part, the airlines need more capital resources to employ the most experienced cabin crews. Limited resources are also a barrier to regular training on technological updates, leaving the pilots and cabin crew unable to conduct simulations.
In response, aviation safety programs could organize and facilitate exchange programs to enable the exchange of skills and learning between experienced and inexperienced pilots (Zimmermann & Mendonca, 2021). Similarly, the programs could organize training for cabin crew members by partnering with training institutions to ensure the professionals have the necessary skills. Exchange programs on both fronts engender peer-to-peer, hands-on learning that imparts practical skills in the improvement of safety for airlines.
Pilot and cabin crew certification is a daunting issue in the airline industry, given that more and more investigations into aircraft crashes report incompetence of the responsible personnel. These alarming numbers call for stringent verification of the academic training and experience of pilots who fly aircraft. As of today, there is a specific structure of steps that one must go through to be competent in flying different aircraft.
While the structure of certification is well-known, thousands of trained pilots skip from the student pilot certification to, say, private pilot or commercial pilot (Boyd et al., 2021). Conversely, they are meant to gain experience as sports, remote, and recreational pilots before rising to the ranks of commercial and airline pilots. The Aviation Safety Programs should thus develop testing programs that gauge the experience qualification for all the ranks rather than just checking the possession of the pilot’s qualification documentation. Strict regulations must be in place to detect forgery and to prevent pilots from skipping qualification stages.
Conclusion
The Aviation Safety Programs have radically transformed the American airline industry in innumerable ways. The significance of the programs lies primarily in the fact that regulatory measures ensure that aircraft are in perfect condition for flights. This translates to reduced risk of safety incidents and accidents that cause loss of life. More importantly, these outcomes are instrumental in the general reputation of the air industry.
Improved safety instills public safety in the governance of air transport, boosting its choice as a preferred means of transport. A greater significance than this is that better safety bolsters economic output for the United States and the airline companies. With fewer incidents and accidents, insurance saves on insurance money, while airline companies save on funds that go into victim compensation. Zero losses in replacing aircraft parts and manufacturing crafts translate to more significant revenues for expansion. With partnerships, increased funding, and exchange programs, these valuable outcomes can be experienced for all airlines across the US.
References
Adjekum, D. K., & Tous, M. F. (2020). Assessing the relationship between organizational management factors and a resilient safety culture in a collegiate aviation program with Safety Management Systems (SMS). Safety Science, 131.
Barnett, A. (2020). Aviation safety: A whole new world? Transportation Science, 54(1), 84-96.
Bastola, D. P. (2020). The relationship between leadership styles and aviation safety: a study of aviation industry. Journal of Air Transport Studies, 11(1), 71-102.
Boyd, D. D., Scharf, M., & Cross, D. (2021). A comparison of general aviation accidents involving airline pilots and instrument-rated private pilots. Journal of Safety Research, 76, 127-134.
Fuentes, R. W. C., & Chung, C. (2023). Military, civil and international regulations to decrease human factor errors in aviation. StatPearls Publishing.
Gaines, A. R., Morris, M. B., & Gunzelmann, G. (2020). Fatigue-related aviation mishaps. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 91(5), 440-447.
Gao, Y., Hao, Y., Wang, S., & Wu, H. (2021). The dynamics between voluntary safety reporting and commercial aviation accidents. Safety Science, 141.
Georgiev, K. (2021). Aviation safety training methodology. Heliyon, 7(12).
Karanikas, N., Chionis, D., & Plioutsias, A. (2020). Old and new safety thinking: Perspectives of aviation safety investigators. Safety Science, 125.
Lee, H., Madar, S., Sairam, S., Puranik, T. G., Payan, A. P., Kirby, M., & Mavris, D. N. (2020). Critical parameter identification for safety events in commercial aviation using machine learning. Aerospace, 7(6), 73.
Litson & Associates. (n.d.). Aviation Safety is our collective responsibility.
Naor, M., Adler, N., Pinto, G. D., & Dumanis, A. (2020). Psychological safety in aviation new product development teams: Case study of 737 MAX airplane. Sustainability, 12(21).
Stolzer, A. J., Sumwalt, R. L., & Goglia, J. J. (2023). Safety management systems in aviation. CRC Press.
Weldon, W. T., Hupy, J., Lercel, D., & Gould, K. (2021). The use of aviation safety practices in UAS operations: A review. The Collegiate Aviation Review International, 39(1).
Zhang, X., & Mahadevan, S. (2021). Bayesian network modeling of accident investigation reports for aviation safety assessment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 209.
Zimmermann, N., & Mendonca, F. A. C. (2021). The impact of human factors and maintenance documentation on aviation safety: an analysis of 15 years of accident data through the PEAR framework. The Collegiate Aviation Review International, 39(2).