The Analysis of the Comair Flight 5191 - Essay Example

Module Comair Flight 5191: An Ethical Case Study According to Levin of USA Today, on August 28, 2006, the pilots of Comair Flight 5191 caused the CRJ-100 to burst into flames as they attempted to take off from the wrong lane in the Blue Grass Airport, Lexington, Kentucky. The mishap caused the death of 49 of the 50 passengers in the jet, whose pilots used the short lane designed for smaller planes instead of the one meant for larger planes. According to NASA, pilots, retired pilots and workers at the airport, the mistake made by the pilots of Comair Flight 5191 was not unique and many other pilots had made the same mistake, though not all resulted in as many fatalities. Airport records show that flight controllers had told the pilots to use runway 22, which is nearby runway 26 which they used, something that pilots claim occurs commonly whenever there is reduced visibility. The aim of this report is to identify management, engineering, regulatory, socio-technical and ethical issues that culminated in the accident, and make appropriate recommendations mainly based on engineering ethics considerations. Analysis Since it is impossible to determine a single factor that resulted in the crash of Flight 5191, the NTSB should look at all the components of the system that were not functioning at their optimal level, and single them out for improvement, starting with the ones that have the most effect. For instance, any design errors of the airport and management issues among other factors. Engineering Issues. All the airports that these accidents occur have a similar design, showing a lack of concern by engineers or incompetent since the designers have not modified or improved the design despite its predisposition to result in accidents. Runways of different lengths and meant for different plane sizes are built close to each other, making it difficult for pilots to pick the one they have been cleared for takeoff. To make matters worse, there is an unusually short distance to the runway from the airport terminal, such that pilots do not have adequate space to negotiate their planes safely. In addition, these airports are exceedingly complex, and the runway maps provided to pilots are inaccurate; such that a pilot has to use personal judgment when navigating through the runways. In addition to using a single runway for multiple destination flights, the airport managements allow the use of runaways as a taxiway, making a poor situation even worse (Federal Aviation Authority vii). Management Issues. The management of Blue Green Airport failed in some aspects of its duties, which resulted in an increasing likelihood of accidents in the airport runways. Despite an increased rate of accident occurrence in the airport, and related occurrences in similarly designed airports, the management did not seem bothered enough to make any structural or operational adjustments. Moreover, when making the decision to adopt the design for the airport, the management did not consult the people who us the runway for ideas on how to make the runways more effective, efficient, and safer. Finally, the management of Blue Grass did not consider employing additional staff for the flight control tower that was understaffed. If Blue Grass management had put all these factors into consideration, then the likelihood of accident occurrence would have been reduced; otherwise, it would not have shared in the blame for accident occurrences (Airliners.net). Regulatory Factors. Before the rate of accident occurrence escalated, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team had proposed enhancements for airports to adopt to improve the levels of safety. These enhancements included modifications to technology, procedures, and infrastructure, ensuring maximum safety while keeping quality levels high. However, many airports did not adopt these changes, and the Commercial Aviation Safety Team took no regulatory measures to ensure that its proposals were adhered to and implemented. The federal aviation agency, which is the government agency responsible for such matters, did nothing to ensure that airports adhere to the highest possible quality standards. Both bodies did nothing in terms of threat analysis, failing in their duties and resulting in many deaths that could have been avoided (Airliners.net). Socio-technical Issues. This mainly has to do with the poor communication systems and the apparent lack of concern by airport workers and the management despite the accidents, many of which resulted in deaths. For the airport management and the service providers, it was business as usual if they made profits despite the frequent accidents. To them, the safety of passengers was not a priority; all they cared for was using minimum resources even at dangerous levels, for maximum profitability. If they had cared even a little for the safety of passengers, then they would have taken the necessary measures to improve the situation before things got out of hand (Stefoff 34). Ethical Lapses There are some actions and inactions of the people responsible for air travel that resulted in unethical practice, the main one being negligence. Negligence resulted in these stakeholders not dong their duties effectively and efficiently, culminating in unnecessary deaths that could have been avoided. Stakeholder Actions. Various stakeholders, including the contractors, the airport management, airline companies, government and private bodies failed in one way or the other, in their duty to ensure safe travel of air travel users. The airport management, as discussed above, put profits over safety, and continued use of its runways even after discovering that the design was unsafe. The construction companies, including the architects that came up with the design, did not consider the long-term effects of their design; neither did they seek the opinions of other experts or review the decision to implement the design. On the other hand, airline companies should have slowed down their pursuit of profiteering and pressurize Blue Grass Airport management to modify the design to make it safer. Finally, regulatory bodies watched as the situation ran out of hand despite having the power to impose sanctions, give warnings and withdraw licenses if companies do not adhere to safety standards (Airliners.net). Decisions and Interests. Airport designers decided to adopt the design without thorough consultations; and presented the design to the airport management who approved of it. However, this was unethical on the side of the designers since the management are no experts in the field; the designers chose to avoid legal liability by handing over the design to other parties instead of taking social responsibility and modifying the design appropriately. The contractor who implemented the design did so without question; since the contractors are experts on the subject, they must have known that the design was faulty but chose to implement it without modifications. Consequently, they avoided responsibility for the design and implemented it regardless of the long-run implications of their actions. Regulatory bodies chose not to interfere in the workings of Blue Grass Airport, an easy way out instead of spending time in courts or issuing orders for airport modification. In conclusion, all stakeholders put selfish interests like profitability and comfort before safety, and made decisions based on how much they stand to gain, and not how effectively they do their duty (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou 157). Ethical Principles Flouted. During design, adoption and implementation of the airport design, there are various principles of engineering and business ethics that were flouted. The greatest engineering ethics principle that the engineers for Blue Grass did not consider is that of safety analysis, which is done in consultations with other experts in the field. The engineers should have analyzed it for safety using all available tools, including digital simulation before implementing the design. Here, they should have assumed worst-case scenarios, such that the design would be of the highest quality with slim chances of causing accidents. In addition, the engineers should have supplied the airport staff with accurate maps, outsourcing the services of a mapping professional would have been a decent idea. In addition, the engineers should have included any modifications made on the structure in new maps. However, the engineers chose the route that spent the least inputs and resulted in maximum profits despite the imminent danger (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou 157). Risks Ignored. Runways in the airport had intersections such that, in case of faulty communication, there is a high chance of plane collision, a phenomenon that has occurred in various occasions. The flight control tower was understaffed, increasing the risk of erratic or delayed communications to the pilots. In addition to intersections, runways for different flight thresholds were built in proximity to each other, resulting in smaller planes being pushed over by bigger ones on several occasions. Despite all these risks, modifying the infrastructure or adding extra staff in the control tower is costly, and the airport management chose not to engage in these tedious and expensive activities. The result of ignoring these risks was avoidable deaths of travellers who had nothing to do with how the transport industry operates (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou 157). Recommendations Blue Grass Airways should be redesigned, and runways modified to adhere to established safety standards, which should be done in parts such that business does not close, and quality standards are followed. In the redesigning of the runways, engineers should follow ethics, especially one that requires an engineer to work only in his or her area of specialization. Engineers whose area of specialization is not mapping drew the inaccurate maps, which resulted in loss of lives. In addition, every engineer working in the firm should know his or her responsibility to the public of ensuring safety for all regardless of the effect it has on one’s career or finances. If an engineer thinks something is not right, the practice of whistleblowing is recommended whereby an engineer informs relevant authorities of a mistake that may result in disasters. Though there are guides that engineers should follow, every professional should use sound judgment to make decisions regardless of what the guides say as this could be the only way to avoid a looming disaster (Institution of Civil Engineers 12). Quality assurance should be adopted at the airport, whereby there are systematic and continuous adjustments on structural and functional aspects of the airport to ensure an increment in quality standards over time. The design and functionality of the airport should achieve and exceed the acceptable standards, and the control tower should get more employees. Quality assurance enables a firm to improve the structure and service as per changes in requirements or as the structure deteriorates with time. Ethics require that all business personalities, firms, and professionals put public good before personal interests; once they work for the greater good of others, profits are sure to follow (American Society of Civil Engineers 5-10). The final recommendation for use in improvement of the current situation is for stakeholders to consult, review, and communicate effectively on all matters. For instance, the airport management should consult its employees, airline companies, and regulatory agencies, to ensure that everybody’s views are taken into account as the company starts on the road to improvement. When stakeholders communicate effectively among themselves, then the recommendations given above will only act as a guide as they will be able to come up with more areas in their operations that are candidate to improvements. Conclusion Many factors contributed to Comair Flight 5191 crashing at takeoff, but there is no concrete proof that can be used against anyone in a court of law. However, it is not necessary or helpful to anyone if the key players in the industry keep pointing fingers at anyone; what they should do is chart a way forward, and learn from previous mistakes. In addition, all players should work together to compensate the families of the deceased as it is the right thing to do. According to the analysis above, negligence is the main cause of the incident, starting from design to the use of the airport; and all stakeholders take the blame for all that happened. Therefore, they should rethink their priorities, put social responsibility before profiteering, and work in cooperation with each other to prevent a repeat of the same. For instance, before implementation of any design, experts on safety and environmental conservation should be consulted to troubleshoot for possible loopholes in the design. An appropriate approach would be to have a team or committee with experts drawn from all relevant fields. Works Cited Airliners.net. Comair Accident from a Pilots View. Civil Aviation. 2006. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. Code of Ethics. Virginia: ASCE Press, 2010. Print. Federal Aviation Authority. Wrong Runway Departures. Washington DC: Aviation Safety Information Analysis & Sharing (ASIAS). 2007. Print. Institution of Civil Engineers. Royal Charter, By-laws, Regulations and Rules. 2004. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. Levin, Alan. Error in Comair Crash Fairly Common. USA Today. 2006. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. Michaelides-Mateou, Sofia and Mateou, Andreas. Flying in the Face of Criminalization: The Safety Implications of Prosecuting Aviation Professionals for Accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010. Print. Stefoff, Rebecca. Forensics and Modern Disasters. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2010. Print. Read More