Assignment: Based on the course resources, Virtual Crash Lab evidence

Assignment:Based on the course resources, Virtual Crash Lab evidence collection, your personal research, etc., on the topic of the field investigation you are completing this week, post and discuss with peers one example artifact you will or are considering incorporating into your final portfolio, which demonstrates evidence of your critical thought, acumen, and application on the topics.The intent of this collegial dialogue goes beyond faculty feedback and vectors, to gaining and sharing other perspectives on higher-order learning objectives specific to the four subject-specific investigative techniques and applications. Regardless of whether your exploration this week is specific to human factors, survivability, systems, or structures, the overarching objective is to demonstrate the achievement of two primary aspects of the specific topic you cover each week: subject-specific investigative tools and techniques and the influence of accident investigation findings and recommendations specific to the topic you explored this week, on aviation safety. As you post your exemplar, note that your peers will be posting on and discussing any of the four topic areas this week, depending on the order of topics they chose in Part II, but that they too are focusing on investigative tools and techniques and the influence to aviation safety, for their specific topic. This gives each of you the opportunity to be exposed to varying perspectives and artifact examples, on all four subject areas, every week.Information to complete assignment:Human Factors:This field investigation area promotes an understanding of the role and techniques instituted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Human Performance Group. You will gain a comprehension and application of human factors research in accident investigation, and likewise the application of human factors accident investigation findings to research, safety programs, and industry interventions. Specific emphasis is placed on investigating fatigue in aircraft accidents. Other high-priority human factors issues are addressed.Investigating Human PerformanceHuman Factors is the science of human performance, capabilities, and limitations, from the perspectives of cognition, psychology, and physiology, especially when considering the human interface with all other aspects of a system (environment, hardware, software, and other humans).Human error continues to be implicated in the vast majority of transportation and industry accidents, and air transportation is certainly no exception. For decades, we read that approximately 75 – 80% of aircraft accidents were associated with human error, but analyzing accident data from a systems perspective, we see that percentage is much closer to 100% when we consider the role of the crew, aircraft, and aircraft component manufacturers, Air Traffic Controllers, maintainers, schedulers, airline management, regulatory oversight, airport management, and so forth. Gone are the days of citing “pilot error” as causal. Modern taxonomy seeks to identify the root causes of human error such as organizational deficiencies, design problems, automation, and lack of effective oversight.As a member of the team at a major aviation accident, the human performance investigator has specific areas of responsibility during the on-site investigation and afterward. As with other aspects of the on-site investigation, the human performance investigator focuses first on collecting any perishable evidence, such as arranging for toxicological testing and witness statements (perishable in that memory tends to become less accurate and less detailed over time and witnesses can become to track down over time). A critical part of the human performance investigation is to reconstruct the prior 72-hour period leading up to the accident, of the pilots, controllers, and any other individuals pertinent to the accident, such as family members having background knowledge of the pilots. These timeline reconstructions provide pertinent detail about sleeping and eating history/habits, fitness routines, medical backgrounds, moods, financial or family stresses, major life events, preparation for the accident trip, and other information that could prove critical to understanding the accident. Background records such as airman, training, and medical records are also pertinent.One of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) most pressing safety concerns and one they often advocate for via their Most Wanted List, is reducing fatigue-related accidents. Findings collected from the 72-hour reconstruction can be instrumental in the Human Performance investigators quantifying fatigue and determining if fatigue played a role in the accident. This is accomplished through the collection of critical evidence from family, layover hotels, colleagues, phone records, restaurant receipts, etc., to determine normal baseline sleep for that individual, any sleep disorders or variances in sleep patterns, estimates of sleep attained for the past 72 hours, work hours, continuous hours awake, arrival at the layover hotel, times meals were ordered, phone call logs, critical operations during circadian lows, and work hours opposed to normal circadian rhythms. These variables can be used to create an accurate snapshot of acute and cumulative fatigue, which has been attributed to human error and accidents in all modes of transportation.In this module, you will have the opportunity to conduct a fatigue self-assessment to determine your level of fatigue, if any, during working hours.Structural and FireThe purpose of this week is to provide an understanding of structural investigation techniques and structural failure causes and evidence. Investigative techniques used to differentiate post-crash, inflight fires, and explosions; to determine the sources of fuel and ignition; and to determine if explosives were involved, are also explored. Finally, this section analyzes investigative techniques specific to mid-air collisions.In an accident investigation, the Structures Working Group generally analyzes failure modes of any of five types of materials-metals, composites, ceramics, polymers, and semi-conductors, all of which have different properties. For example, metals respond differently to loads (tension, compression, shear, bending, and torsion) and stress than composite materials. Structures investigations, in general terms, address two primary types of material failure accidents:1. Major component failure, which, although rare, is the separation or failure in the flight of a major component such as a wing or aileron, which generally indicates (1) inadequate design strength or (2) excessive loads, or (3) deterioration of static strength through fatigue or corrosion.2. Partial failure or malfunction of a major component generally results in altered flight characteristics. According to The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),Some of the general causes of accidents in this category are jammed controls, improper distribution of load on board, control surface not rigged properly, incorrect installation of parts, hard-over signals from auto-pilots, etc. Accidents of this type are frequently associated with recent repair or alteration work; therefore, the investigator can often discover valuable clues by studying the aircraft’s history as reflected by maintenance entries, pilot reports and by other sources (p. III-9-5).Your text, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Major Accident Investigation Manual, and The ICAO Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation Part III — Investigation, Chapter 9, provide excellent detail on materials characteristics, failure types, and causes.An example of an investigation addressing structural failure is the 2005 Chalk’s Ocean Airways Flight 101, a Grumman Turbo Mallard, which suffered in-flight wing separation. The aircraft crashed into a shipping channel adjacent to the Port of Miami Florida, killing all 20 occupants, and destroying the aircraft on impact. The NTSB determined the probable cause of the wing separation as the failure of the Chalk’s Ocean Airways maintenance program to identify and properly repair fatigue cracks, and the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to detect and correct deficiencies in the company’s maintenance program.Fire investigation can pose a daunting task in complex accidents, but generally, sufficient evidence exists to support whether the fire occurred in-flight or post-crash and where the seat of the fire and ignition and fuel sources were. Also imperative is to address whether the fire was associated with explosive forces, as was the case with Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Because of the catastrophic and predominant non-survivable nature of in-flight fires, this is a particularly high focus area for investigators. It is important to note that in the United States, any evidence of terrorist activity would change the controlling agency from the NTSB to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as was the case with the terrorist events of 9/11 (NTSB, 2007).An example of an in-flight fire is ValuJet Airlines, Inc. Flight 592, a DC-9 that crashed into the Florida Everglades, killing five crew and 105 passengers. The crash resulted from an in-flight fire in the airplane’s class D cargo compartment, which was initiated by the actuation of one or more oxygen generators carried as cargo. The NTSB attributed the fire to the failure of SabreTech to properly package and identify chemical oxygen generators, ValuJet’s lack of oversight of contract maintenance and hazardous materials requirements and practices, and the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to require smoke detection and fire suppression systems in class D cargo compartments (NTSB, 1997).ReferencesICAO. (n.d.). Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation Part III. https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3708.pdfNational Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (2007). In-flight separation of right-wing, Flying Boat, Inc. (doing business as Chalk’s Ocean Airways) flight 101 Grumman Turbo Mallard (G-73T), N2969 Port of Miami, Florida December 19, 2005. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0704.pdfNational Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (1997). In-flight fire and impact with terrain Valujet Airlines flight 592 DC-9-32, N904VJ Everglades, near Miami, Florida May 11, 19996. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9706.pdfAircraft SystemsThis area of your fieldwork investigation covers aircraft systems investigative techniques. For the purpose of this course, aircraft systems are categorized as propulsion systems, aircraft systems, and cockpit instruments. Propulsion investigation encompasses reciprocating engines, turbine engines, and propellers. Aircraft systems are generally categorized as electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, fuel, mechanical, fluid transfer, and miscellaneous systems.Aircraft system investigation can be a long and tedious process, especially depending on the level of damage and ability to recover sufficient wreckage debris specific to each system. Barry Holt, Western Region Senior Technical Investigator with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, and David Fisher, Manager, Air Safety Investigations with Commercial Aircraft, Bombardier Air Safety Investigation wrote an interesting piece titled Managing a Complex Aircraft Systems Investigation (ISASI/PDF) their challenges investigating the landing gear collapse upon landing, of Jazz Aviation Flight 8481, which occurred on November 6, 2014. Also representative of the complexities of investigating systems failures in complex accidents was the wreckage retrieval and investigation of Trans World Airlines (TWA) Flight 800 and COPA Airlines Flight 201.TWA 800, a 747 heading from JFK to Charles DeGaulle International Airport, Paris, France, broke up with explosive forces midair on July 17, 1996, spreading wreckage debris over a vast area of the Atlantic Ocean near East Moriches, New York and killing all 230 occupants. TWA flight 800 was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a scheduled international passenger flight from John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), New York, New York, to Charles DeGaulle International Airport, Paris, France. The airplane itself was destroyed by the explosion, breakup and impact forces, and fire.According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (2000, p. xvi):The probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system. Contributing factors to the accident were the design and certification concept that fuel tank explosions could be prevented solely by precluding all ignition sources and the design and certification of the Boeing 747 with heat sources located beneath the CWT with no means to reduce the heat transferred into the CWT or to render the fuel vapor in the tank nonflammable.COPA Airlines 201 was another example of midair break-up and widespread wreckage over nearly eight miles in a vast jungle. According to the accident report, there was an intermittent failure of the main attitude indicator due to a short circuit. The flight crew didn’t notice the issue and adjusted the aircraft’s attitude based on the malfunctioning attitude indicator. The aircraft was on cruise at FL250 when it went into an uncontrolled high-speed dive and broke up several thousand feet above the ground.The key to understanding the basic principles of systems is transferring fluid/air/energy from the source to the application. The source or supply is the initiating component such as fuel tanks, hydraulic fluid, reservoirs, and batteries or generators. An initiating power source, such as a pump, serves to propel the fluid, air, and energy through the system. These systems then distribute the matter to the application source via wires, cables, plumbing, pulleys, etc. Finally, the application is where the intended function occurs. Investigators start with this basic understanding of systems to assess where the specific system components potentially failed. The investigation becomes more complex as investigators drill down to the component level, to isolate specific failures and to determine whether the failure occurred pre- or post-crash and whether the failure contributed to the accident.ReferencesNational Transportation Safety Board (2000). In-flight breakup over the Atlantic Ocean Trans World Airlines flight 800 Boeing 747-131, N93119 near East Moriches, New York July 17, 1996. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0003.pdfSurvival FactorsThe purpose of this week is to provide an understanding of structural investigation techniques and structural failure causes and evidence. Investigative techniques used to differentiate post-crash, inflight fires, and explosions; to determine the sources of fuel and ignition; and to determine if explosives were involved, are also explored. Finally, this section analyzes investigative techniques specific to mid-air collisions.In an accident investigation, the Structures Working Group generally analyzes failure modes of any of five types of materials-metals, composites, ceramics, polymers, and semi-conductors, all of which have different properties. For example, metals respond differently to loads (tension, compression, shear, bending, and torsion) and stress than composite materials. Structures investigations, in general terms, address two primary types of material failure accidents:1. Major component failure, which, although rare, is the separation or failure in the flight of a major component such as a wing or aileron, which generally indicates (1) inadequate design strength or (2) excessive loads, or (3) deterioration of static strength through fatigue or corrosion.2. Partial failure or malfunction of a major component generally results in altered flight characteristics. According to The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),Some of the general causes of accidents in this category are jammed controls, improper distribution of load on board, control surface not rigged properly, incorrect installation of parts, hard-over signals from auto-pilots, etc. Accidents of this type are frequently associated with recent repair or alteration work; therefore, the investigator can often discover valuable clues by studying the aircraft’s history as reflected by maintenance entries, pilot reports and by other sources (p. III-9-5).Your text, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Major Accident Investigation Manual, and The ICAO Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation Part III — Investigation, Chapter 9, provide excellent detail on materials characteristics, failure types, and causes.An example of an investigation addressing structural failure is the 2005 Chalk’s Ocean Airways Flight 101, a Grumman Turbo Mallard, which suffered in-flight wing separation. The aircraft crashed into a shipping channel adjacent to the Port of Miami Florida, killing all 20 occupants, and destroying the aircraft on impact. The NTSB determined the probable cause of the wing separation as the failure of the Chalk’s Ocean Airways maintenance program to identify and properly repair fatigue cracks, and the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to detect and correct deficiencies in the company’s maintenance program.Fire investigation can pose a daunting task in complex accidents, but generally, sufficient evidence exists to support whether the fire occurred in-flight or post-crash and where the seat of the fire and ignition and fuel sources were. Also imperative is to address whether the fire was associated with explosive forces, as was the case with Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Because of the catastrophic and predominant non-survivable nature of in-flight fires, this is a particularly high focus area for investigators. It is important to note that in the United States, any evidence of terrorist activity would change the controlling agency from the NTSB to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as was the case with the terrorist events of 9/11 (NTSB, 2007).An example of an in-flight fire is ValuJet Airlines, Inc. Flight 592, a DC-9 that crashed into the Florida Everglades, killing five crew and 105 passengers. The crash resulted from an in-flight fire in the airplane’s class D cargo compartment, which was initiated by the actuation of one or more oxygen generators carried as cargo. The NTSB attributed the fire to the failure of SabreTech to properly package and identify chemical oxygen generators, ValuJet’s lack of oversight of contract maintenance and hazardous materials requirements and practices, and the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to require smoke detection and fire suppression systems in class D cargo compartments (NTSB, 1997).ReferencesICAO. (n.d.). Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation Part III. https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3708.pdfNational Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (2007). In-flight separation of right-wing, Flying Boat, Inc. (doing business as Chalk’s Ocean Airways) flight 101 Grumman Turbo Mallard (G-73T), N2969 Port of Miami, Florida December 19, 2005. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0704.pdfNational Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (1997). In-flight fire and impact with terrain Valujet Airlines flight 592 DC-9-32, N904VJ Everglades, near Miami, Florida May 11, 19996. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9706.pdf

…

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL – NO PLAGIARISM

(USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)

CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS

The Best Custom Essay Writing Service

About Our Service

We are an online academic writing company that connects talented freelance writers with students in need of their services. Unlike other writing companies, our team is made up of native English speakers from countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand.

Qualified Writers

Our Guarantees:

CLICK TO SUBMIT YOUR ORDER