Project Philosophy
Research philosophy is the central methodological part of the research, which determines the choice of specific tactics, visions, and procedures used for data collection and further analysis. Among the critical philosophical trends that determine the vector of the project are positivism, realism, interpretivism, and pragmatism (Mason et al., 2020). For this study, the chosen philosophy was interpretivism, which defines the subjectivity of reality and accepts a plurality of viewpoints (Rogers, 2020). This philosophy fits the goals of this research paper perfectly because there are a large number of companies and regulations in the aviation industry, including those dependent on the state affiliation of the airline, and this plurality is perceived as meaningful for data collection and results. In addition, since there are no universal regulations that airlines adopt, interpretivism will allow for the most extensive, and therefore closer to dependable, data. In other words, the end result of this paper is not to obtain narrow and small knowledge on the topic but rather to investigate the most data from various sources and summarize it, which will provide an overall picture of the practices and strategies that aircrew and mechanics undertake to ensure anti-terrorism security. It should also be noted that the data that is assumed to be collected is not part of an objectivist epistemology, as safety rules were invented by humans and are a reflection of the problems that airlines have faced for decades (Majid et al., 2022). To put it another way, there is no universal, isolated entity of anti-terrorist security on board, so the constructivist epistemological paradigm was chosen accordingly.
Data Collection Method
Semi-structured interviews were used as a data collection tool to obtain data directly from sources of information, namely the airplane crew members and mechanics servicing the flight. The semi-structured method was chosen because the primary vector of the conversation was necessary for its direction, but the questions could be changed or modified slightly during the interview depending on the context (Husband, 2020). Among others, this data collection method helped to collect not only direct data but also to assess verbal and nonverbal cues from respondents, including body language, as “doing empathy takes form through body language, communication, and not avoiding difficult topics, for example, drugs, abuse, and loneliness” (Place, 2019; von Knorring et al., 2019, p. 3). This quote proves to be the most pertinent, as it was the touching on complex topics during data collection that could lead to avoidance, and the researcher had to have tremendous empathy in order to collect as much data as possible. Among other things, this was an essential aspect of data collection, as it allowed for the assessment of those points and questions where respondents tended to withhold information or give it away in part, as discussions of counterterrorism security can be hidden due to privacy issues. If a particular question that suggested a direct answer was not appropriate for the respondent because they did not want to divulge the information due to specific reasons, body language could be used to assess this condition.
It is worth emphasizing that this strategy perfectly satisfies aspects of constructivist epistemology because interviews with different respondents, including those from different professions, are not built on the recognition of objectivity. The researcher acknowledges that each of the participants can make a unique contribution to the overall picture of counterterrorism security, and their responses are directly influenced by their subjective experiences and the professional procedures they have used before. At the same time, each participant’s nonverbal and verbal cues may differ, including in the same situations, which implies that subjectivity has been taken as the basis for data collection.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Interviews
The chosen method of data collection, the interview, has both strengths and weaknesses that potentially affect the reliability of the findings. The main advantages of interviews include the flexibility of interviewing, the ability to ask questions that respondents may or may not answer, and the ability to capture their emotional states, respectively (SG, 2020). In addition, interview refusal rates are much lower than, for example, for online mail surveys, which means more direct answers can be obtained. The advantages also include the ability to control the course of the conversation, to change the order of questions, and to ask additional questions if required. However, there are weaknesses to this method of data collection: they include the high costs of time and finances required to conduct it and the possibility of bias in the results resulting from resource constraints. In particular, only some of the participants may have been available for interviews, and as a result, the breadth of the results may have been questionable. It is also worth noting that the interviews do not ensure anonymity, which means that the quality of the information collected and its honesty may also be questionable.
Data Validity and Reliability
Validity is defined as determining the extent to which a data collection method actually measures the results for which it is intended. The proposed interview has high face validity because it has been validated by independent third-party experts. Among other things, the interview had high face validity because the same questions could be applied to other respondents from the field, and thus, the results could be reproducible. That said, the reliability of the data may have been compromised because respondents may have needed to be more honest with the interviewer and withheld some of the data in order to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information.
Potential Ethical Problems
This method of data collection is associated with several academic ethical issues. First, these are the already voiced problems of withholding information due to the reluctance to disclose sensitive data. Second, because the information disclosed can be disruptive to participants’ safety, it is necessary to ensure that their identities are fully anonymized. Third, to ensure the academic integrity and reliability of the research, all voluntary participants will be required to sign an informed consent describing the risks, goals, and objectives of the project. Finally, plagiarism and misuse of research should be avoided when reporting results, which includes full citation of all data.
Reference List
Majid, S., et al. (2022) ‘The effect of safety risk management and airport personnel competency on aviation safety performance’, Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10(4), pp. 1509-1522.
Husband, G. (2020) ‘Ethical data collection and recognizing the impact of semi-structured interviews on research respondents’, Education Sciences, 10(8), pp. 206-218.
Mason, P., Augustyn, M.M. and Seakhoa-King, A. (2022) ‘Research philosophy’, in D. Buhalis (ed.) Encyclopedia of tourism management and marketing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 681-684.
Place, G. (2019) ‘Stand out in an interview’, ITE Journal, 89(9), pp. 20-21.
Rogers, J. (2020) The interpretivist lens – what design study as a method of inquiry can teach us. Web.
SG (2020) Advantages and disadvantages of interview in research. Sociology Group. Web.
von Knorring, J., et al. (2019) ‘“It is through body language and looks, but it is also a feeling” — a qualitative study on medical interns’ experience of empathy’, BMC Medical Education, 19(1), pp. 1-8.
Appendix A
Summarized Results of the Flight Attendant Survey
Q. Is there a regulation regarding flight attendant behavior to prevent a terrorist threat from passengers?
Yes, absolutely. During training, even before the first actual flight, all flight attendants are thoroughly trained, which includes theoretical and practical parts. These regulations vary between airlines, and each airline has its own regulations, although I am convinced that they are basically similar.
Q. If a regulation exists, are flight attendants trained in these measures? Is the training systematic or a one-time training during the internship?
We have a portion during training that is dedicated to anti-terrorist security measures, but it is worth saying that it only makes up part of the training process. In addition, we have regular refresher courses at our airline, where we have to repeat all aspects of the training, including counterterrorism security. I think it has to do with the fact that the number and quality of terrorist attacks on board are increasing, and the criminals are getting more and more resourceful. So, we need to continually expand our knowledge and methods of onboard screening, although, in general, I can say that these are standard procedures.
Q. What anti-terrorist security measures do you apply during the flight?
First of all, it is a full inspection of the aircraft before inviting passengers. If the flight departs from a domestic airport (for example, Emirates from Dubai), then the inspection is performed by a qualified airport security team and, in rare cases, the crew. If the flight originates in another country, the crew is responsible for inspection. The inspection procedure itself is called the Safety & Security Check; I think you can learn more about that if you want. During the inspection, we check not only the functionality of the emergency equipment, which includes the rescue kits, the operation of the emergency exits, and the inflatable descent, but also the contents of the aircraft. Of interest: there is a special cabin inspection scheme, which includes the following inspection direction from end to beginning, from right to left, and from bottom to top. Each crew member has their own area of responsibility.
If something unknown is found on board, the entire crew has a standard rule: “do not touch, do not move, do not leave unattended.” Information about the discovery is reported to the captain on board, and then airport security is invited. In addition, passengers are not allowed to enter the flight deck under any pretext whatever. No matter what happens on board, up to and including death or an emergency, access to the flight deck is denied to passengers permanently. Even if the plane is hijacked by terrorists, the door is locked from the inside, which means that no one can enter the cockpit. Accordingly, all communication will be strictly through the onboard telephone in the flight deck.
If there is a hijacking, then our airlines use a three-step system of behavior, which will be implemented depending on the context. It has classified chiefly information, but I can tell you that it is about sending a veiled signal to pilots, remembering as much detail and appearance of the perpetrators as possible, and using techniques to keep as many passengers alive as possible.
Q. What are the signs you might suspect that a passenger is providing a terrorist threat?
Actually, no profiling that I read about in some media does not take place in the context of anti-terrorist security. We closely monitor all passengers on board, and each employee has his or her own area of responsibility. Basically, our observations deal with crimes such as carrying drugs or drug intoxication and human trafficking. If a passenger — especially girls — stays quiet the entire flight and the men in charge sit next to them, that is one of the signals for suspicion. The signals increase if the passenger is not communicating and starts to get nervous. In general, nervousness and confusion are typical patterns of behavior that we always pay attention to.
Q. If you suspect a passenger, what measures can you take during the flight?
It is probably worth saying that threats against an airplane happen almost every day. They are classified according to the degree of danger — green warning and red warning. The first is an everyday occurrence, there is nothing super dangerous in them, but the second is a signal to contact the captain and the security service. In general, passengers can constantly either joke about bombs or leave strange messages in the toilet — it is considered the norm. However, if the threat seems tangible, of course, it is immediately reported to the pilot and the security services. Red warnings include threats that name a specific ship, time of flight, and other identifying information — such information should never be ignored. If a red warning was received during a flight, the red warning checklist (in flight) is used, but if on the ground, the red warning checklist (on the ground) is used. The checklists are constantly used by all responsible employees because it helps not to miss key details.
Of interest, in the case of a red warning in flight, the pilots are responsible for checking the instrument panel and communicating with ground safety services, and the crew is responsible for inspecting the aircraft. Furthermore, we have to inspect it so that none of the passengers would notice it or notice it as late as possible. There are special hidden inspection techniques, such as when everyone is asleep. When an unknown object is found, the flight supervisor uses a three-question technique to assess the danger of the object. This involves determining the intentionality of the item left behind the intentionality of hiding it, and the potential for harm — if two of the three answers are positive, then it is a dangerous item, potentially leading to a terrorist attack. In this case, one of the crew, a volunteer, moves the item to a low-risk area, meaning that in the event of an explosive detonation, the risk to the aircraft will be minimal. While the volunteer is carrying it, another member of the crew is on the safety net. The object is enclosed by a particular protective wall and must be marked, for example, with a scarf or tie. In this case, the passengers should move as close as possible to the beginning of the plane, and the back row of seats will occupy the crew.
Q. 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?
Probably not. The crew goes through a rigorous security screening system at the airport, and in my experience, there has never been any leniency. Every country has its own strictness and rules, although in general, it is plus or minus the same practices.
The voluntariness of participation in the interview is confirmed by the fact that no pressure or coercion was exerted on the participants, which means that they were fully aware of the responsibility and voluntariness of participation.
Appendix B
Summarized Results of the Pilot Survey
Q. Do you receive signals from flight attendants during the flight that there are potentially dangerous individuals among the passengers?
Basically, the catching of potentially dangerous passengers takes place before the boarding stage, at the airport. There are specially trained people in the security services, who know exactly how to identify the terrorist. During the flight, our options are much more limited; we cannot kick a passenger out into the street. But, for example, during the boarding stage when passengers are getting on the plane, if we see an intoxicated person who poses a danger, we highly likely will not let him on the flight, although again, that depends on the airline. If we are talking about the flight phase, when we are already in the air, the pilots stay connected with the flight attendants via telephone – they can tell us that there is some kind of problem observed in the cabin. In emergency situations, if there is a chance to pacify the offender and there are no men among the crew, the co-pilot can come out to the cabin and help apprehend and isolate the passenger.
Q. In your practice, have there been instances where unauthorized persons have entered the cockpit? Q. Given that this practice is prohibited, have you ever noticed any deviations from this? (Jenkins, 2020).
No, this has never happened in my practice, and I suspect it never will. We use armored doors that cannot even be broken by gunfire, so the entrance is sealed off throughout the operation of the aircraft. The entrance to the cockpit is strictly regulated and only those crew members who were entered in the flight assignment prior to the flight have access to it. The flight task list is, roughly speaking, the main itinerary document, which contains information about the flight, aircraft model, passenger, and crew list. If you remember, there is at least one case in the world practice, except naturally on 9/11, it happened in Russia in 1994. Back then, an Airbus bound for Hong Kong crashed because the pilot’s children were allowed into the cockpit and were sitting at the controls. Now such practices are banned in all airlines in the world, as far as I know.
Q. Do you use sensors to record and monitor the movement of passengers on board the aircraft?
No, pilots do not do such things, as they have their own responsibilities. Controlling the aircraft takes a lot of time and attention, even at the autopilot stage, plus we are in constant communication with dispatchers. So, we do not monitor the passengers and we do not use any sensors. But if any deviations occur, any passenger behaving defiantly, the flight attendants can report it to us by telephone.
Q. Are you aware of any differences in the anti-terrorism security measures of different states when entering their airspace?
Yes, actually they teach that even before the first flight, and there are a lot of rules. Each state’s airspace has its own unique characteristics, and some of them do have their own anti-terrorism rules, although it is true to say that most of them turn out to be typical. One of the most basic rules is not allowing a hijacked plane to land at an airport if the country has refused to do so. This includes the use of government military fighter jets, which can destroy the plane in order to prevent it from entering the country, because protecting the safety of citizens is a priority.
If, however, the intelligence services were aware that terrorists would be traveling on the flight in question, agents are allowed on board. They can seize and disarm the criminal, but personally I have never heard of such cases from my colleagues. I can also say that for some states, the compliance paradigm applies, where in an effort to save the lives of as many passengers as possible, the crew complies with the terrorists’ demands. For other countries, by contrast, terrorists on board are threats that can be eliminated, so the crew is trained in self-defense techniques, including wielding handguns. In addition, in case of an emergency, the crew may seek help from the plane’s passengers to counter terrorists.
Q. What are your procedures when an explosive device or passenger posing a terrorist threat is detected on board?
It depends on the airline, but here, for example, we have the following procedure. First a verbal warning is issued to the passenger, and if his disruptive behavior continues, a written confirmation signed by the aircraft commander is issued. If this does not help, the pilot informs the representative agency of the landing place of the passenger’s data in order to prosecute them upon landing. If a suspicious object is found on board, all information is reported to the aircraft commander and passengers are seated as far away from the object as possible. Oxygen cylinders and first-aid kits are also moved away. The pilots land the plane at the nearest airfield and, together with the flight attendants, arrange for the evacuation of the crew. Any actions, including transporting a suspicious object, are carefully coordinated with security services at airports. Incidentally, there is a specific location for each aircraft in use that is regarded as the least vulnerable location in the event of an explosion.
Q. 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?
Of course, like the passengers, the crew undergoes a thorough security check at the airport. Of course, there are sometimes some indulgences, but my observation is that they do not affect the possibility of bringing weapons or explosives on board. However, I am sure that the quality of such security checks is strictly dependent on the individual state and the airline.
Appendix C
Summarized Results of the Mechanics Survey
Q. Do you conduct a complete inspection of the aircraft before you sign an operating approval?
It is the flight engineer’s responsibility to conduct a complete inspection of the aircraft before takeoff, so yes, we do. Although flight attendants are also responsible for conducting safety inspections, the initial inspection, especially of operational elements and devices, is the flight engineer’s responsibility.
Q. If you notice any foreign or foreign objects on board, including in the engineering structures of the aircraft, what is your action?
I always inform my superiors and security personnel. If the suspicious object poses a threat to the flight, the aircraft can be delayed even before the boarding stage.
Q. Can you install any parts in the aircraft structure without the approval of the responsible party, such as the manager?
Any activity I do on board always has to be approved by management. Even boarding and inspections require an itinerary, an order, without which I cannot do anything. So no, no amateurism is allowed, everything is done only with coordination and strict information.
Q. 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?
There have been times when I have found malfunctions that were repaired before the flight. However, such cases should always be reported to the crew and management, since there is liability, including criminal liability, for ignoring such parts. If the malfunction does not affect flight safety, however, it can be ignored until the next major scheduled inspection of the vessel. For example, if there is some problem with the seat or one of the lights is not working, it is acceptable.
Q. Have you ever had unauthorized people you do not know access to aircraft engineering?
There were times when I had colleagues collaborating with me who I did not know because they were new. But each of us has ID cards, which allow us to establish the identity and professional responsibility of the employee. I understand why you are asking this, but I can tell you that aircraft safety is a multi-step process, and none of us can make personal edits to the aircraft to go unnoticed.
Q. 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?
Yes, just like any other crew member or as passengers. We have our own security checkpoints, but in general it is no different than what you know. That said, I have never noticed any of the rules being ignored. We may joke around or be friendly with the security staff because we work together all the time, but it does not affect safety.