Health, Safety & Aviation Law - Essay Example

Health, Safety & Aviation Law Introduction It is quite evident that the air cargo scheme is a composite system that manages a huge amount of goods, packages, and mail carried on board passenger and all-cargo airplane. The air cargo system is susceptible to several security terrorizations including: possible plots to put explosives aboard airplane; illegitimate consignments of dangerous materials; illegal activities such as smuggling and robbery; and potential hijackings and disruption through people who manage access to aircraft. Despite the fact that it is usually agreed complete screening of all consignment placed on airplane is not practicable, quite a few routine and technology initiatives have been planned to improve air cargo safety and prevent terrorist and illegal threats. These initiatives comprise: develop the ‘identified shipper’ agenda; enhance cargo inspections; raise physical safety of air cargo services; increase oversight of air cargo operations; give safety training for cargo employees; and strict controls over access to aircraft throughout cargo operations. Other tools being well thought-out to improve air cargo safety includes: tamper-resistant and tamper-evident packaging and containers; explosive detection methods and other cargo screening equipments; blast-resistant cargo containers; and biometric methods for employee identification and right of entry control. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act includes broad measures for cargo screening, and safety procedures. The freights carried in passenger airplanes ought to be monitored and its safety ensured. Actually, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has faith on ‘known shipper’ programs to avoid consignments from unidentified sources on passenger airplane. Various safety procedures have been put in practice to alleviate the risks linked with placing freight on passenger airplane and all-cargo aircraft (Elias, 2003). Air Cargo Safety Challenges Various threats linked to air cargo safety comprise: carrying of explosive and incendiary devices; consignments of unrevealed or undetected dangerous materials aboard aircraft; cargo offense including theft and smuggling; and aircraft hijackings and disruption by persons with access to aircraft. Authorities have cautioned that air cargo possibly a potential target for terrorists for the reason that screening and scrutiny of air cargo is at present not as extensive as mandatory screening of passengers and inspected luggage. In case of goods carried aboard passenger airplane may be at certain threat because passenger aircraft are usually considered as extremely attractive targets to terrorists and it is evident from the past incidences. As per the intelligence report Transportation Security Administration (TSA) believes that cargo is likely to become the main aviation target for terrorists in the future. On the other hand, other terrorism specialists observe loading explosives in air cargo as less important to terrorists for the reason that usually a particular flight cannot be targeted without the help of a person with access to airplane. Yet another reason is that all-cargo aircraft are less likable targets to terrorists since an attack against an all-cargo aircraft is not expected to create the level of public and media awareness that a bombing of a commercial passenger aircraft would have. One of the most disastrous bombing of a U.S. aircraft was the December 21, 1988 crash of Pan Am flight 103, a Boeing 747, over Lockerbie, Scotland that was ascribed to a volatile device positioned in a luggage container in the airplane’s forward hold (United Kingdom Air Accidents Investigation Branch, 1990). Another incident of the fatal bombing of a passenger aircraft, the June 23, 1985 downing of Air India flight 182 off the coast of Ireland, exposed evidence of a volatile device that was placed in inspected luggage and positioned in the aircraft’s forward cargo hold (Canadian Aviation Bureau Safety Board, 1985). Nov. 15, 1979 explosion aboard an American Airlines Boeing 727 occurred was the most serious episode due to an explosive device transported as cargo aboard the aircraft that made a successful emergency landing at Dulles Airport following the incident. Inquiry revealed that the device was enclosed in a parcel. The augmented efforts to carry out background checks of personnel with access to airplane and improved physical safety around air cargo operations possibly will further alleviate the threat of explosives and incendiary devices. Moreover, the use of hardened cargo containers competent of resisting internal bomb blasts are being assessed and can give a means of mitigating the menace of explosives and incendiary devices. In spite of improved Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversight and enforcement efforts, a tacit and unnoticed consignment of dangerous materials keep on to pose important safety dilemma for air carriers. Usually nearly all explosives and gases are not allowed aboard airplane; nevertheless quite a few suitably handled unsafe materials are allowed aboard passenger and all-cargo aircraft within specific limitations (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). Threats are initiated when unsafe materials are not acknowledged leading to the possible transportation of forbidden materials by air or inappropriate managing of dangerous goods during loading and even as in transit. Even as safety concerns on the subject of dangerous cargo consignments aboard passenger aircraft are of meticulous anxiety, stopping illegal shipments of unsafe materials is a challenge for all-cargo aircraft operators as well. Approximately seventy five percent of dangerous materials are carried aboard all-cargo aircraft, whereas the remaining twenty five percent is shipped on passenger airplane (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). Improved air cargo safety procedures can progress air cargo protection by expanding the detection of hidden hazardous materials. There are cargo offenses such as theft of goods transported as consignment, and delivery and smuggling of contraband, forged, and pirated goods through the cargo distribution system. As per the data’s available it is expected that losses because of cargo theft across all transportation form total between $10 and 25 billion yearly in the United States. The anticipated level of cargo theft and other cargo crimes shows the possible flaws in cargo safety as well as air cargo safety. Precise flaws in air cargo safety have been highlighted in some high profile studies of cargo theft. Smuggling activities are frequently connected to prearranged crime, and may offer support for terrorist operations. It is noticed that a large percentage of cargo offense is either committed by or with the support of cargo employees. Hence, improved safety procedures such as accomplishing additional stringent or repeated background checks of cargo employees and enhancing physical security of cargo operations areas are expected to lessen cargo offenses and develop the competence to notice illegal activity in air cargo operations. An appraisal of transportation safety requirements for fighting cargo offense recognized six key issues: lack of effective cargo theft reporting systems; limitations in present transportation crime laws and prosecution; lack of knowledge about the nature of cargo offense by governments and industry; insufficient support for cargo theft task forces; need to develop local rule enforcement expertise on cargo stealing; and the need for extra efficient cargo security technology together with: cargo tracking systems, tamper-evident and tamper-resistant seals, high-speed monitoring devices, and incorporation of safety technology into supply chain supervision systems. Tackling these problems specific to cargo crime may enhance general cargo safety and prevent terrorist threats to cargo shipments. Despite the fact that these suggestions are intended for cargo crime matters in all modes of transportation, they could be predominantly applicable to air cargo safety where other safety anxieties for example explosive and incendiary device detection, dangerous materials detection, and preventing hijackings and disruption also can be attended to through the execution of tighter controls to put off cargo offense. Persons with access to airplane may possibly create a threat of possible hijackings and airplane damage. Occurrences of hijackings by persons who possess access to airplane have been very uncommon, however two instances of mostly aggressive episode by dissatisfied persons who had access to airplane that made easy their plans for hijacking. A case of dramatic hijacking effort by a person who had access to aircraft and cargo operations services happened on April 7, 1994 (Hirschman, 1997). An aircraft flight engineer attempted to hijack a FedEx DC- 10 aircraft and crash it into the company’s Memphis, Tennessee headquarters. The flight crew upset the hijacker’s effort to take over the airplane by force and made a successful emergency landing in Memphis even with serious injuries to flight crewmembers. Persons misused their access to aircraft credentials to avoid existing security procedures. For instance, on December 7, 1987, a PSA local plane crashed near San Luis Obispo, California causing death to all forty-three people on board. Inquiry into the incident revealed that a discontented ex-employee, who was removed from service because of alleged theft, used his worker credentials, to evade airport security with a handgun. He shot his previous superior who was a traveler on the airplane. He went to the flight deck, shot the pilots and co-pilot, and then shot himself causing the airplane into a crash dive. After these events, airport and air cargo safety regulations have been tightened to institute enhanced controls over aircraft access as well as background checks and physical screening of persons with access to airplane. On the other hand, without full monitoring of air cargo and airport employees, the possibility still exists for individuals with access to airplane to pass weapons inside the protected areas of airports. Sharp security procedures on passenger aircraft since September 11, 2001 may perhaps make all-cargo aircrafts easier target for terrorists to hijack large airplanes (Elias, 2003). At present, cargo airplanes need not have hardened cockpit doors, and pilots of all-cargo aircraft not necessarily partake in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, that authorize deputized pilots of passenger airplanes to carry firearms to protect the flight deck. Recent legislation permits pilots of all-cargo aircraft to take part in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. Damage by persons those who have the access to airplane is as well a possible threat, even though in general not considered as a major risk for the reason that the high level of understanding regarding aircraft systems required to sabotage flight critical systems, the levels of redundancy of flight critical structures on modern transport group aircrafts, and the existing competence to sense sabotage attempts through aircraft techniques and pre-flight assessments (Elias, 2003). According to CNN study, Americans flying on passenger planes remain susceptible to another terrorist attack in the air because of negligent monitoring of the millions of tons of freight loaded into the belly of aircraft. Even as screening of passengers and their baggage has been boosted up radically since hijackers crashed four planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, nothing considerably changed concerning the safety of cargo, as per the opinion of FAA inspector and the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission. He adds that more or less none of the cargo is inspected. Former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, observed that the airline industry and the federal government have failed gravely to tackle the safety of air cargo, a multibillion-dollar industry. He said that the safety measures are not adhered to protect the American public. The FAA inspector observed that the lack of safety concerning to air cargo is not new to federal agencies responsible with airline safety. Since last one-decade government commissions, congressional panels and federal agency reports suggested the urgent need for more safety in the cargo holds of planes (Griffin and Johnston, 2005) . CNN inquired to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) what proportion of air cargo is being examined and was told the information is not available to the public because of safety reasons. According to data’s available two or three years old only five percent or less of air cargoes were being inspected. The airline industry reported that 100 percent of cargo is monitored through the air industry’s ‘known shipper’ program. Mark Hatfield, federal communications director for the TSA, explained that about 400,000 companies certify their cargo is safe through ‘known shipper’ program. This program is the process by which the airlines, the carriers, in fact are necessary to go through a series of activities to recognize and know and examine the shippers so that there's not any kind of strange article out there. The shippers officially state that their cargo is safe; as a result the airlines consequently take for granted cargo from those shippers is safe. The TSA then maintains the whole system is safe. Some critics dispute on the "known shipper" program that it is little more than a paperwork check-off: If the paperwork's good, the cargo gets clearance and get loaded on the plane without any further question. Both the TSA and the air industry acknowledge the system is far from perfect, however, they are working on further development. One cannot expect cargo to ever get the same level of inspection as passengers and their bags. CNN's study establishes that common sense and more attention could alleviate the problems of open gates, unattended cargo containers and unsecured truck routes. The TSA has planned screening all people at airports who have access to cargo that would go a long way in the direction of making cargo areas at airports as protected as the passenger terminals. Agency officials admit that there is not much TSA can do to tighten safety at all 400,000 of the "known shippers" who handle cargo, even though it plans to take over control of the ‘known shipper’ roll to attach more responsibility to the system (Griffin and Johnston, 2005). A lot of the cargo system is based on a conviction that the government can be certain of cargo security if there is a proper record of who is sending the package and has fulfilled background checks on the goods forwarding and air cargo workers who have access to the consignments. The airlines or goods forwarders, who undertake much more intense background checks, perform the inspections. Transportation officials do not indicate whether the inspection done by opening the box, using a screening machine or a dog, or other means, leaving the airlines to decide(Lipton, 2007). The legislation which was part of a much larger antiterrorism package would entail that within three years, all air cargo going onto passenger planes be inspected with a system of equipment, technology, procedures and personnel that together ‘present a level of safety equivalent’ to checked baggage screening. To progress the existing procedure, the Senate bill, which has bipartisan support, calls for setting up of more automated inspection tools, and it press on the security administration to consider mandating use of blast-resistant bins for holding air cargo, a move it has been bearing in mind for quite a few years (Lipton, 2007). Air Cargo Safety Initiatives around the Globe At present, there are two major argument concerning air cargo safety, the first argument is that full screening of air cargo would be too expensive and troublesome to let for successful execution. The other explanation is that full screening and better safety procedures are desirable to minimize to the extent the potential risks linked with air cargo. Currently, it is generally acknowledged that any type of physical inspection or electronic monitoring of all cargo would not be technically and logistically practicable without negatively impacting air cargo operations. It is estimated that if full physical cargo screening is put into practice, only 4% of the daily volume of goods at airports could be processed. Therefore, most experts concur that a practical approach would engage the use of risk-managed cargo profiling measures to identify shipments that may be well thought-out of high risk and the application of physical linspection on so chosen consignments (Buzdugan, N.D.). The technologies projected for improving air cargo safety comprises: explosive detection methods and other cargo screening devices and technology; tamper resistant and tamper evident packaging and containers; explosion resistant cargo containers and biometric systems for employee identification and access control to air cargo services. Operational initiatives include suggestions to enforce compulsory advance cargo information, develop the use of ‘authorized economic operator’ and ‘secure supply chain’, enhance physical safety of air cargo facilities, raise oversight of air cargo operations, give training for cargo employees, and tighten controls over access to airplane throughout cargo operations (Buzdugan, N.D.). The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has the responsibility for regulating the numerous technical features of international civil aviation, with the main intention of encouraging aviation safety and security. Some of the vital multilateral instrument addressing aviation security, hijacking and terrorism were accepted under the ICAO’s patronage. Additionally, ICAO accept ‘Standards and Recommended Practices’ (SARPs) Chicago Convention include several SARPs with the intention of stopping explosives and incendiary devices from being loaded onboard aircraft. States are required to focus proper security control of freight planned for carriage on passenger flights and to make sure that operators do not allow consignments of cargo on passenger flights unless a ‘regulated agent’ has accounted for safety or that they are subjected to other security controls. (SARPs): being lawful proposed controls (Buzdugan, N.D.). National Regulatory Initiatives in Air Cargo Security After September 11, 2001 incident, the US turned out to be the foremost advocate of stringent aviation safety measures– The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) adopted in November 2001, formed the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA is mandatory to provide for the screening of all cargo that will be carried aboard commercial passenger aircraft and to increase a deliberate security plan for screening and inspections to ensure the security of cargo that is to be transported in all cargo aircraft. The TSA started the execution of its Air Cargo Deliberate Plan, in November 2003, a multi phased, risk managed approach to strengthening of the air cargo safety all through the entire supply chain (Buzdugan, N.D.). IniExamples of United States Cargo Security Initiatives are: Advance Cargo Information requirement that is gathering of cargo information by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) preceding to the cargo’s arrival in or departure from the country of the United States by any commercial method of transportation; such details is intended to allow detection of high risk shipments. The ‘Known Shipper’ Program: sets up procedures for air carriers and goods forwarders to appraise the security practices of known customers and expand a cargo security arrangement for managing cargo from known and unknown shippers; a consignment from a known shipper will be transported with no additional screening, whereas consignments from unknown shippers would be screened by X-ray or physically inspected before being loaded aboard a passenger airplane. The Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT): is the public/private corporation meant at improving safety along the entire supply chain; the main reason is to enlist voluntary involvement of common commercial air carriers and certain foreign companies, in the organization and develop the security ‘best practices’ engaged by participants in the global trade chain. The US Customs and a representative of the industry carry out a validation process of the participants based on risk management principles. This participation will lessen inspection time of partners’ shipment and speed up processing of d partners’ consignments (Buzdugan, N.D.). In Canada Screening of cargo at present is the duty of air carriers. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) is responsible only with passenger and luggage screening. Examples of Regulatory Initiatives are: Advanced Commercial Information Initiative e: an agenda meant at increasing the efficiency of risk management processes by better identifying intimidation to public health, safety and security prior to arrival of consignments in Canada that is importers are mandatory to electronically submit to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) key information concerning their cargo before the goods arrive in Canada. Partners in Protection (PIP) Program: similar to CTPAT program; it is accessible to the entire trade population and involves signing a partnership contract with CBSA; companies are required to present the CBSA with a self-appraisals of their security methods. This benefits the participants a faster movement of goods through customs. In the United Kingdom Screening of cargo is according to ‘Known Consignor’ Customs Business Partnership: cargo from ‘known consignors’ that is customers of airlines that pass a validation process conducted by independent valuators selected by the Department of Transport and chosen on the basis of their cargo safety knowledge is to be considered as secure and permitted to be loaded on an aircraft without further inspections. Standard for validation process: the physical safety measures in place, the staffing procedures, staff safety training procedures access control to the premises, air cargo preparation procedures, air cargo packing procedures, storage of safe cargo, transport of safe cargo to security approved airline (Buzdugan, N.D.). In Australia– Screening of cargo is according to Accredited Client Programme that is intended for low risk importers and exporters with the plan of streamlining their reporting necessities so as to become an accredited customer. Traders required to guarantee customs authorities of their ongoing observance with business and security system and a history of providing precise and timely information; the parties sign a officially binding agreement under which the accredited clients need to obey with the obligation to present customs with precise and timely information concerning changes to company personnel, security procedures or systems. The execution of air cargo safety should be based on a corporation where every member must bear its fair share of costs. However, such costs can be quite heavy to both governments and the air cargo industry. Few others recommended that a fee schedule be established to be charged to all shippers to cover costs linked with screening cargo (Buzdugan, N.D.). Conclusion Air cargo safety has turn out to be one of the foremost global security concern given its recognized vulnerabilities that make air cargo probably the easiest target for terrorists. In recent years, several countries have implemented measures intended at improving air cargo safety and such requirements are forced on inbound carriers from other countries. Consequently, the need for safety of air cargo transport becomes a truth for all countries involved in international commercial aviation (Buzdugan, N.D.). Work place safety Thousands of flight employees work in commercial airplane cabins with possible exposure to cosmic ionizing waves, changes of circadian cadence from travel across time zones, cabin toxin for example tobacco smoke and ozone, bodily strain for instance extended standing, and mental strain such as job stress. A small number of studies have characterized air cabin exposure and health outcomes among U.S. flight personnel. Collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Cancer Institute, the HHS Office of Women’s Health and the Department of Defense Women’s Health Research Program, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established an agenda of study in this unique work-related group. Researches are in progress to demonstrate exposures in the aircraft cabin setting and to scrutinize a range of health effects in flight attendants and pilots. These learning will help scientists to establish if flight crews’ working environment place them at menace of undesirable health effects, and if so, what measures would be required to minimize that risk (CDC, N.D.). Knowledge of the health effects of cosmic radiation has been highly developed through modern scientific learning, centering on aircrew. It is interesting to know cosmic radiation effect on the health aspect of flight crews as they relate to air travel and considers airplane cabins as their work place. Cosmic radiation (CR) is a form of ionizing waves. Radiation elements continuously pass through the cosmos and enter the Earth's atmosphere. Cosmic Radiation mainly consists of primary particles such as protons, electrons, and ions and secondary particles for instance neutrons produced when these particles enter the Earth's atmosphere. At sea level CR contributes about 13% to the usual background radiation (WHO, 2005). Cosmic radiation is dissimilar from other forms of ionizing radiation. For instance, nuclear industry employees or medical staffs are generally exposed to gamma-radiation and X-rays. Neutrons contribute up to 50% of the effectual radiation measure that aircrew and air travelers get from CR. The natural effects of these neutrons and CR in general are not completely known at present and that is why health studies of aircrew are being carried out globally. The intensity of CR in the Earth’s atmosphere depends mainly on four factors such as altitude, geographic latitude, normal solar activity, and solar proton event (WHO, 2005). Aircrew and frequent flyer exposure Radiation dosage is calculated in milliSieverts (mSv). Flight crews flying 600-800 hours per year is exposed to 2 to 5 milliSievert (mSv) of radiation every year as well to the customary radiation of 2-3 mSv through man-made and natural radiation sources. Flight crews are currently recognized in many nations as occupationally exposed to radiation, and radiation safety limits for aircrew are similar to those recognized for nuclear employees. Recurrent air travelers normally do not reach the number of hours flown by flight crew. Therefore, unless they fly as much or more than typical aircrew, their radiation exposure and related potential health hazards are expected to be lesser than that of aircrew. Further to that short flights are often flown at lower heights than long flights, so that short flights acquire less radiation exposure than long flights. Various other factors, which affect CR exposure levels, vary with individual flight and moreover, technique of measuring CR are still being developed and evaluated by scientists (WHO, 2005). Health effects Cancer is the major health consequence that has been linked with low-dose radiation. As cosmic radiation is a very low-level source of radiation, the related threat of increasing cancer is as well expected to be less and hard to establish with the scientific tools at hand. There is little proof so far that work-related exposure to cosmic radiation raises cancer risk, and only partial evidence that rising amounts of CR exposure may cause an equivalent increase in certain cancers. A number of aircrew studies have revealed an augmented menace of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. Ultraviolet radiation for instance sun tanning is a recognized risk factor for these cancers; however further information is required to establish if CR exposure as well influence the risk. Breast cancer among female flight crew, considered as new sickness or linked death, was also established in some studies. Reasons other than radiation, for instance those from a woman’s reproductive record; do not seem to completely explain this increase. Seldom studies have found risk increases for other type of cancers but not established this in the other studies. Additional proof will be available as further studies of aircrews are carried out, and since aircrews that have already been studied are followed-up further. At present, further studies are being carried out that scrutinize other health effects including cataracts, chromosomal (genetic) damage, and evaluate reproductive health. These studies will further enhance about the health risks of cosmic radiation in the near future (WHO, 2005). The global Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP), in 1990, suggested that jet aircrew should be measured occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation. Guidelines concerning dose limits for occupational exposure have been established by international agencies involved in radiation protection. Work-related exposure of any employee should not go beyond an effective dose of 20 mSv per year averaged over five successive years. During pregnancy, the corresponding dose for the fetus may not exceed 1 mSv. As a safety measure many airlines transfer pregnant flight staff to ground duties based on general concern of possible harmful effects of flying during pregnancy (WHO, 2005). World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations concerning cosmic radiation In order to defend flight crews from too much radiation exposure airliners are told to review and track aircrew radiation doses; provide aircrew with a proof of their personal collective radiation dose; think about radiation exposure and to decrease occupational radiation exposure where possible while making flight schedules; educate employees about the effects of cosmic radiation; caution personnel about possible major solar proton events, and counsel those who have traveled in an area of increased radiation during an SPE. And flight crews are told to keep themselves well versed about health effects of cosmic radiation; consider radiation exposure when choosing flight schedule; limit flight schedule throughout pregnancy. WHO identifies that there is an extensive concern in clear and reliable information on potential health hazards linked with cosmic radiation. All through the Radiation and Environmental Health programme, WHO offers reliable and evidence-based information on health and environmental issues of ionizing and cosmic radiation. WHO also issue guidelines and safety principles for the defense against ionizing radiation and is offering direction to member states concerning radiation safety for specific groups and the community at large (WHO, 2005). References Buzdugan, M. (ND).An Overview of Several Regulatory Initiatives around the World, McGill Institute of Air and Space Law, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: http://www.aviation.go.th/rbm/Maria%20Buzdugan%20Air%20Cargo%20Security.pdf Canadian Aviation Bureau Safety Board, (1985). Aviation Occurrence, Air India Boeing 747-237B VT-EFO, Cork, Ireland 110 Miles West, 23 June1985. CDC, (N.D.) The Flight Crew Research Program at NIOSH Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/flightcrew/ Elias, B. (2003) Air Cargo Security CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL32022 09112003.pdf Griffin, D. and Johnston, K. (2005) CNN probe finds weak link in air security, CNN.Com. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/10/air.cargo.safety/index.html Hirschman, D. (1997). Hijacked: The True Story of the Heroes of Flight 705. (NewYork: William Morrow & Co, 1997). Lipton, E. (2007) U.S. security debate centers, inspections of air cargo, the International Herald Tribune, The Global Edition of New York Times Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/america/web.0208security.php?page=2 United Kingdom Air Accidents Investigation Branch, (1990) Report on the accident to Boeing 747-121, N739PA at Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland on 21 December 1988 (Aircraft Accident Report No 2/90 (EW/C1094)), July 1990. U.S. General Accounting Office, (2003) Aviation Safety: Undeclared Air Shipments of Dangerous Goods and DOT’s Enforcement Approach. (GAO-03-22, January 2003). WHO, (2005) Cosmic Radiation and Air Travel, Information Sheet Nov. 2005 Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/cosmic/WHO_Info_Sheet_Cosmic_Radiation.pdf Read More