Enterprise Risk Management in Aviation

Enterprise Risk Management in Aviation

Enterprise Risk Management in Aviation

Name

Course

Professor

Date

Enterprise Risk Management in Aviation

Airlines charge a fee for baggage carried by passengers on the flight. The fee usually varies with airlines depending on the size and weight of the baggage. Passengers are also charged according to the number of bags they have. American Airlines charges $ 25 for the first checked bag and $ 35 for the second bag with a limit of 50 pounds weight each per passenger flying within the United States (Powers, 2012). The passenger is also allowed carry-on luggage weighing 40 pounds which is normally not charged. Some airlines may not limit the size and weight of carry on luggage depending on the capacity and size to which the plane is filled. Carry-on luggage contains items that the passenger may require at hand such as medication and items such as jewellery, cameras, phones and laptops. It consists of a sizeable bag and a personal item for example a purse or a laptop. Frequent fliers such as business travelers and military personnel have different arrangements (Powers, 2012).

With the current charges for checked baggage, passengers are carrying more in their carry-on baggage to reduce the amount of fees they pay on the flight (Harris and Muir, 2005, p72). They also carry more on board to reduce the hustles of checking out from the airport once they land as well as reducing the incidence of their baggage getting lost and misplaced (Philips, 1997). Airlines are also increasing the capacity of overhead bins to take in more and larger carry on items. This includes airlines such as United, Delta, American and US Airways (Powers, 2012). According to the Detroit News (2012), airlines are offering larger overheads bins to address issues of over packed carry on bins and the stress and delays that occur as a result of lack of room in overhead bins. Because carry-on luggage is rarely weighed, it adds to the element of uncertainty to the pilot’s weight-balance calculations (Flight Safety Foundation, 1997, p8).

The increase in the size of overhead bins has several advantages. These include enabling the passengers to have their luggage closer to them during the flight and hence can be easily removed while getting off the plane (Freed, 2012). It also allows them to be more relaxed during their flight as they can keep the location of their luggage in sight. Airlines should, however, have stricter check in procedures to ensure passengers do not bring more carry-on luggage than allowed on the plane due to the availability of room. Another advantage is that airlines that have bigger overhead bins in their planes will have competitive advantage compared to the others among passengers who have a bulkier carry-on luggage and among business travelers who tend to favour airlines with room for their carry-on luggage as they are able to put it all in one place.

Despite these advantages, the large overhead bins also introduce several safety issues while flying. Most of these risks are in relation to the excess carry-on luggage that the passengers will be encouraged to bring to the plane (NTSB, 1982, p3). These include the risk of luggage falling on passengers and the crew members during the flight or after when the passengers are pulling out their luggage. When the plane hits turbulence or get into bad weather, the luggage may be hurled out and harm the occupants.

In 1981, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) did a study and found out that about 78% of the accidents and incidents involved failure of overhead furnishings such as the overhead bins. According to the report, the basic designs and/ or failures of the overhead bins allowed stored items stored in them to fall during the crashes causing injuries to the passengers (Brooks, 1986).

According to an NTSB (2012, p1), on August 10, 2012, Aires Airline flight 8250, a Boeing 737-700, HK-4682, crashed short of the runway at San Andreas Island Airport. 2 occupants were fatally injured, 15 sustained serious injuries, and 66 sustained minor injuries. On examination of the airplane after the accident, it was found out that Passenger Service Units (PSU) was found hanging in the seat rows or lying in passenger seats or in the aisle and most of the overhead bins were dislodged from the airframe (NTSB, 2012, p3). Some of the passengers sustained head injuries and skull fractures which could have been as a result of the PSU and overhead bins hitting them on the head during the crash. In the Boeing 737 plane, the passenger service units and the overhead bins were built as per the Boeing specification and were considered effective and safe (NTSB, 2012, p5).

Another risk associated with carry-on baggage is the obstruction it causes during the evacuation of people from the plane in the event of an emergency such as a crash landing. The fall aisle and make it difficult to move during the evacuation. As a result of this, people who would otherwise have survived the accident end up dying or being completely disabled. With larger overhead bins built to accommodate more and larger carry on items causing even more obstruction than before. For example in the above mentioned accident, most of the PSU and overhead bins were found in the cabin aisle causing an obstruction in the rows and the aisle especially at the emergency exits and could delay emergency evacuation of passengers and cabin crew members from the plane (NTSB, 2012, p9). This is likely to be similar in other similar accidents.

There is also a risk of passengers carrying out prohibited items in their carry on luggage especially if they are not aware of the regulations put in place in the airplane. Such items would include cigarette lighters and things that would cause a fire in an airplane. According to the Civil Aviation Authority (2007, p2), customs officers found a passenger’s baggage contained 48 long

fireworks (roman candle type), 32 packets of friction ignition (match style) fireworks and 2 cigarette lighters, all packed in the same bag. All these are not allowed into the aircraft as they cause a risk to the passengers and generally to the airworthiness of the plane. They are part of the prohibited dangerous goods in the FAA regulations and airline workers should have been able to detect them and remove them from his possession and were a potential security risk to everyone on the flight (FAA, 1997).

There is also a risk of damage to the items carried in the carry-on luggage due to more items being put in the overhead bin especially electronics such as phones, cameras and laptops (Muir and Thomas, 2004, p483). When more stuff is put in the bins, things are squashed and bumped against each other during the flight. Passengers may find some of their valuable commodities destroyed at the end of the flight some of which may be expensive. This was a bit less when the overhead bins were just big enough to fit sizeable hand luggage, coats and hats. Some of this may be damaged if they fall due to the lock not being properly secured or if they fall when they are being removed.

When overhead bins are made larger, it may cause more delays and commotion during the boarding and while leaving the plane than before (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 1995, p4). This might happen when passengers are trying to fit their entire carry-on luggage in the overhead bins and also as they remove them after they land. There is also a risk that passengers can hurt themselves if they have heavier hand luggage and they try to lift it to the overhead bins. This is especially risky for elderly passengers.

Flight attendants are also at risk of injury due their work in the cabin of the airplane (Friend, 1997). According to the Association of Flight Attendants (1997), carry-on injuries mostly occur while the flight attendants are carrying, lifting and stowing passenger bags in the cabin. The report further states that the members of the association have reported injuries such as one flight attendant hurt her back and was disabled for three months as she attempted to put a bag which weighed over 40 pounds in the overhead bin. According to Vincent (2012), Flight Attendants have to help the passengers and this makes them more vulnerable.

Risk Assessment Matrix

FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE HAZARD CATEGORIES

1

CATASTROPHIC 2

CRITICAL 3

SERIOUS 4

MINOR

(A) FREQUENT 1A 2A 3A 4A

(B) PROBABLE 1B 2B 3B 4B

(C) OCCASSIONAL 1C 2C 3C 4C

(D) REMOTE 1D 2D 3D 4D

(E) IMPROBABLE 1E 2E 3E 4E

Unacceptable

High

Medium

Low

In the risk assessment matrix, the numbers represent the severity of the situation. 1 represents death or disability and irreversible damage to the plane; 2 represents severe injury to a person; 3 represents injury requiring occupants to go for medical attention and 4 represents possible injury or damage to the plane.

The letters on the other hand represent the frequency of occurrence with A representing if the hazard was expected to occur frequently; B represents whether it will occur several times; C represents if it is likely to occur; D represents if the hazard is unlikely to occur while E if it is likely the experience is not likely to occur.

The red zone represents the hazards that occur and cause death, permanent injury or cause the victims to seek medical attention and happen several times. The yellow zone represents hazards that are not so severe compared to those in the red zone. They lead to the above but only happen once or twice. The hazards in the orange zone are frequent but cause little or no damage to both the occupants and the plane itself and are minor. These include damage to items in carry-on luggage in the overhead bins. The blue zone represents the hazards with the least probability of occurrence as well as causing the least damage even when they occur occasionally.

Hazards that may be in the red zone include falling of items from the overhead bins and the PSU during a crash as they may cause death and/or permanent disability to those involved. Obstruction of rescuers during evacuation may also be in that zone if it leads to death of a passenger and flight attendant during evacuation especially in case of a big crash. Hazards in the yellow zone also include the above as well as carrying prohibited items which though occasional may cause serious problems (Hicks and Morrison, 1997). Damage of items in the carry on may be frequent but only cause minor damage hence is in the orange category. The risk to flight attendants is frequent and is normally minor but can also fall in the red category if it is really serious by causing severe injury.

In conclusion, there are some commercial benefits being sought by the airlines increasing the capacity of the overhead bins to take in more and larger carry-on items. They will attract more passengers to their airlines compared to the other airlines with smaller overhead bins. This will increase the revenue collected especially if they attract the business travelers who fly frequently.

Another advantage of the large over head bins is that it provides more room for the passengers in the place. There is more room for everyone to put their luggage. They also allow the passengers to be able to have their luggage near them during the flight hence reducing their anxiety as they can be able to keep track of their luggage during the whole flight (Freed, 2012). Passengers also reduce baggage fees charged by airlines as they are able to carry a sizeable amount of baggage as carry-on.

However, in order to effectively implement this, several safety procedures should be put in place. The overhead bins should contain strong latches to ensure that they do not open up during the flight and hence ensure the passengers are kept safe from falling items. Airlines should also ensure that strict check-in procedures are followed to ensure that there are no dangerous and/or prohibited items carried on board the plane (NTSB, 1992). This is done as a security measure.

It is also important so that the airlines are able to check whether the luggage is in line with the weight requirements of the airline and prevent the passengers from carrying in heavy luggage as carry-on. Airlines should also have efficient loading and off loading procedures to ensure that everything is safely kept and well secured before the plane starts to taxi on the runway (Flight Safety Foundation, 1997, p11). A specific person should also be assigned the duty to check whether all carry-on luggages are properly stored before take off. Overhead bins should also be built with greater consideration for safety ensuring they are built to withstand high impact so that they do get fall on especially in case of a light crash causing more damage (Muir and Thomas, 2004, p482).. Airlines should also look into abolishing carry-on luggage altogether so that passengers are only allowed a light bag in the airplane cabin. This will help ensure that heavy items and bags do not fall on people even in the case of an emergency.

Works Cited

Freed, J., (2012). Airlines expand size of luggage bins: Passengers carry on bigger bags to avoid high check-in fees. [Online] Available at < HYPERLINK “http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120306/BIZ/203060357/1001/biz/Airlines-expand-size-luggage-bins” http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120306/BIZ/203060357/1001/biz/Airlines-expand-size-luggage-bins > [Accessed 16 April 2012]

Harris, D. and Muir, H.C., 2005. Contemporary Issues In Human Factors And Aviation Safety. Hampshire, London: Ashgate Publishing. Pp 72-75

Muir, H. and Thomas, L., 2004. Passenger safety and very large transportation aircraft, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 76 Iss: 5, pp.479 – 486

NTSB. Safety Recommendations A-92-11 through A-92-15. March 18, 1992

Philips, D., 1997. An unchecked Problem: Fliers put Bags before Safety. The Washington Post

Powers, M. (2012). HYPERLINK “http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/03/airlines-offer-more-room-in-carry-on-overhead-bins/” Airlines to Offer More Room in Carry-On Overhead Bins. [Online] Council of Better Business Bureaus. Available at < HYPERLINK “http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/03/airlines-offer-more-room-in-carry-on-overhead-bins/” http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/03/airlines-offer-more-room-in-carry-on-overhead-bins/> [Accessed 15 April 2012]

Vincent, B.H., 1997. Presentation at a Conference sponsored by the Association o Flight Attendants. Washington D.C

Brooks, R., 1986. ‘The Safety Implication of the Carry-on Baggage Issue’ Proceedings of the Flight Safety Foundation 39th Annual International Air Safety Seminar. Arlington, Virginia: Flight Safety Foundation.

US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 1981. Special Study: Cabin Safety in Large Transport Aircraft. Report No. NTSB-AAS-81-2. Washington D.C: NTSB Pp 3-4

US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 2012. Safety Recommendation. Washington D.C: NTSB, pp 1-12

Federal Aviation Administration. 1997. Petition for Rulemaking to Require Airlines to Screen and Limit Carry-on Luggage. Washington: FAA

Flight Safety Foundation. 1997. Cabin Crew Safety: Increased Amount and Types of Carry-on Baggage bring New Industry Responses. Alexandria, VA: Flight Safety Foundation, pp 1-12

Friend, P.A. 1997. Presentation at a Conference Sponsored by the Association of Flight Attendants. Washington D.C

Hicks, B. and Morrison, R., (1997). Passenger Related Safety Hazards. [Online] Aviation Safety Reporting System. Available at < HYPERLINK “http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl9_pax.htm” http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl9_pax.htm> [Accessed 16 April 2012]

Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 1995. A Safety Study of Evacuations of Large, Passenger-carrying Aircraft. Report No’ SA9501. Pp 4-8.