Critical Analysis of Aviation Security in Relation to EASA Standards

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AVIATION SECURITY IN RELATION TO EASA STANDARDS

Abstract

Safety of aviation industry has been endangered by terrorism, unlawful acts that are committed by people with various motivations, bad attitudes of personnel among others. In the past years, sabotaging and hijacking of airplanes and related facilities has been reported severally and it is a major concern for the world of aviation that is generally meant to put security and safety of its passengers and personnel first.  The purpose of this study is to analyse security measures in civil aviation industries under EASA standards, secondly, the issue of securing aviation will be addressed, aviation security policies, criteria used in securitization, how effective the criteria’s are and compliance between the member states  of EASA.

This study will also seek to find out, the general attitudes of member countries, passengers and personnel on the issue of aviation security. This study will make use descriptive research survey design to examine the attitudes of stakeholders. The sampling method that will be adopted will be stratified sampling using countries as strata. Pre-determined number of people will be used to get the airports and airlines that will be used in the study, research instruments to be used for data collection in this study will be questionnaires and interview schedules among others. This study will be helpful in ascertaining some shortcomings and at the same time, give insights on the industry’s security concerns and help avoid negative consequences that may come as a result of non-compliance among other things and following the recommendations on aviation security.

Key words:

Security, aviation, attitudes, securitization, policies, member states,

CHAPTER 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

Air transport today is among the fastest growing modes of transport, and therefore, the regulators, manufacturers and operators must endeavor to find effective new ways to improve the standard to make the passengers feel safer. The European Aviation Safety Agency, (EASA), has well established itself as the innovative, competent, and influential safety regulator internationally. The body certifies European aircrafts products, repair shops, design offices and production facilities, etc. it also addresses regulatory and safety matters that range from the engines to software systems , flight standards, maintenance, standardizations and also new certification methods (Mark & Yoann 2015). The body has almost 80 member countries including, Finland, Bulgaria, Poland, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, united states, Kenya , India, Indonesia, China, etc

A survey performed by Ghent University described the concerns towards safety (Jorens et al., 2015). In addition to that, the London school of economics study focused on the safety concerns among the European pilots and disclosed that, reporting and just culture, the perceived safety support and fatigue are the main areas that affect security in aviation (Reader et al., 2016). The EU through EASA has adopted the ICAO initiatives to establish the safety management systems in all levels and therefore there is need to promote safety culture through the organization since a just culture, safety support and fatigue reporting’s are the required vital areas to have and maintain an effective safety management system being implemented in Europe (ICAO, 2013; EASA, 2014).

Evolution of aviation safety has come up from a technical era into the organizational era through the human era; safety management systems are supported by the safety assurance, safety policy, risk management and safety advancement.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Data from the EASA shows a decent record for the commercial air transportation over years and particularly one the EU registered operators, nevertheless, a single flight accident like the one experienced in the year 2015, may seriously affect the generally positive image of the airlines, cause massive life losses among other negative consequences. Safety of passenger and workers in the aviation industry should come first yet in the past years the EASA member states have been registering accidents each year the year with most accidents was 2005 and the year with the least number was the year 2010 and 2013. There are more than one causes of these accidents and therefore there is need to pay a closer attention to the causes and come up with ways to mitigate them. Statistics shows that in 2011 through 2016, the number of people killed in aviation under the European Union is 1388 and 1025 of these passengers were killed by an aircraft under 2250 kg MTOM which made up to 85% of fatalities, commercial air works made up to 4% of the fatalities, and the aerial works made up 11% of the total number of fatalities reported (Eurostat, 2017).

150 passengers died in accidents occurring under the EU territory,  and involved aircrafts that were listed in countries associated European union, aircraft accident fatalities in 2016 (85%) were registered under the  general aviation and the accidents occurred in France(32 passengers died), Spain (25 mortalities), Germany, (16 fatality rate), and Hungary, (13 passengers died).

With this in mind, there is a great need to evaluate aviation security and especially in relation to EASA standards to find out why air security of passengers and personnel is still at risk and also make an impact assessment in finding out the attitudes of stakeholders when it comes to their security, and make recommendations based on the findings.

1.3 Research Objectives

  1. To evaluate securitization in relation to EASA standards.
  2. To find out about securitization and compliance with the EASA standards between member states and partners.
  3. To analyse the effectiveness of securitization criteria.
  4. To assess the stakeholder’s attitude and awareness towards the security measures put forward by EASA.

1.4 Significance of the Study

This study is essential to the pilots, passengers, administrators, the government, and generally aviation personnel in all the EASA member states and also the partners across the globe. It will help solve the challenges that might come along with attitudes, lack of awareness and compliance issues among the member states in the fast-growing industry. It will also show the benefits of embracing the set standards and following the criteria to enhance security and efficiency in services delivery and assist the policymakers and personnel involved in setting the standards more informed on the effects attitudes, compliance issues, effectiveness of their standards, among others that will evaluated in this study since when these issues are brought forward, the policymakers and will be able to implement better standards using better method that will improve the security situation among member states.

1.5 Scope of Delimitation

The study on aviation security was conducted in airports across Europe and other countries that are within the jurisdiction of EU through direct and online contact. The study also involved reaching out to the agency executives in cologne Germany to get more information on the topic.

1.6 limitations of the study

Limitation is anything the researcher has no control over and that may affect the validity of the study (Wanjohi, 2014). The limitations may include the fact the researcher may lack the desired cooperation from the respondents and especially if the topic under study is sensitive and therefore the respondent may fear taking part in the study for reasons best known to him or to her. The respondent may also give false information for fear that the right information may paint a negative image of the company or the organization. There may also be limitations to access of some facts that may be needed in this study.

To overcome the limitations, the researcher will make an explanation of what the research is about, the purpose, among other relevant details that will help the respondent feel free to give information and will also obtain the consent from the respondent through building good rapport with them.

These anticipated limitations may be due to the vastness of the population under study and for this reason the researcher will use questionnaires as a method of collecting data, since they will be significant to the researcher since the information will be obtained within a short time period.

1.7 Theoretical Framework

This study will be anchored upon the sociotechnical systems theory that originated in the 60s from research by Travistock institute of human resource (Hendrick & Kleiner, 2002). Trist and Bamforth recognized the four components of work systems. The first is work system design, technological sub-systems, personnel subsystem and finally the external environment which interact in a synergic combination (Carayon et al., 2015). The systems are interdependent and they revolve around three major features, the joint causation, joint optimization and joint design.  The basic tenet of the theory is the concept of fit, in order for a system to perform well the designs need to be compatible, and also they need to work together with the psychosocial characteristics of the personnel subsystem, with characteristics of the external environment and with the employed technology (Kleiner and Hendrick, 2002).

To ensure the security of passengers and personnel, there is the need to bring the four components to work together. The establishment of secure air transport will necessitate other policies at the organizational level and ensure that they are adhered to, and the people involved should be aware that their behaviour will have consequences

1.8 Conceptual Framework

Conceptual framework displays the connection between the variables is as shown in the diagram below. The study focuses on the interaction between the variables which are stakeholders’ awareness and attitudes and effectiveness of securitization about EASA standards across the EU member states. In this case, the independent variable will be the stakeholders’ awareness and attitude affecting the security measures put aside by the EASA. On the other hand, dependent variables were securitization compliance and securitization criteria in EU’s member states.  

 

1.9 Operational Definition of Terms

  1. Aviation- these are the activities that surround the mechanical flights in the aircraft industry
  2. Security- this refers to the practices that are employed in attempt to keep staff, passengers and Planes safe from accidents or malicious harm, crimes among other threats.
  3. Securitization- it is the financial process whereby, resources are pooled together to prevent future misfortunes, pay debts etc.
  4. Member states- these are the states and countries that are a part of the EASA

Literature Review

2.0 Introduction

This chapter presents an assessment of literature on aviation security. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), in literature review researchers describe briefly, the systematic location, identification, and analysis of documents containing information related to the research problem being investigated. The sources of literature will include scholarly journal articles, both published and non-published reports, books and web articles. The review is organized based on the following subsections: empirical review of literature, summary of review of literature and research gap.

2.1 Review of Theories.

The theory that will guide this study is the complex sociotechnical systems theory and the constructivist learning theory. This is because, the issue of security is not to be implemented by one person but a pool of individuals who come together, learn and collect resources that will be used in enhancing aviation security. Learning theory best suites this study since, how well the passengers, the staff, the pilots, managers etc. are taught and how well they understand the issue of security will determine the level of compliance, how well the criteria are set, etc.

2.1.1 Constructivism.

Constructivism discusses the idea that learners/ implementers construct new knowledge themselves with the able guidance of instructors during the learning/implementation process (Gelman 1994; von, Glasers & Feld 1984). Dewey (1939), Piaget (2001) and Vygotsky (1986) amongst others, were some of the main supporters of constructivism, and they advocated for this constructivism theory. In this approach, the leader acts as a facilitator or guide through the process (Shumba 2011). Although this approach seems ideal in the field of aviation, some personnel, instructors, and leaders in the industry appear not to know what constructivism is and hence find difficulties in applying this approach during the learning/ implementation of policies and teaching stakeholders process (Hewson & Thorley 1989).Constructivism contributes significantly to these processes everywhere and especially when teaching the stakeholders. Constructivism has had considerable achievements and profound effect on the learning procedure in different settings (Mathews 1992, 1994; Phillips 1995; Osborne 1996; Stave 1997; Shumba 2011). The types of alternative learning strategies it suggests, and has since generated, have made an imperative input to our understanding of the learner and the learning process (Ausubel 1963, 1978; Mushoriwa & Shumba 2002; Staver 1997).

Constructivism in science education can be traced to a response contrary to two features controlling science restructurings in the 1960s and 1970s. First, as an epistemology founded on a trusting empiricism (Harris and Taylor 1983), and second, as a developmental stage model of cognitive growth, constructivism has been construed as implying deterministic limits to learners’ capabilities. Reactions to these two schools of thought have been initiated by Driver and Easy (1978: 8) who argue that ‘achievement in science depends to a greater extent upon specific abilities and prior experience than general levels of cognitive functioning’. This implies that in order for learners to perform in the field, they should have certain specific abilities and prior experience. Constructivism focuses on the pliability of the people’s principles and social construction of realism (Shumba 2011).

2.1.2 Criticism of Theories.

The constructivists regarded teaching and learning as pursuit for meaning and the idea that learners construct new knowledge themselves with the people giving guidance during the learning process. Piaget and Vygotsky defined fundamentals that aided to predict what individuals understand at dissimilar stages (Rummel 2008). Information in the theory illumine the variances and connections between the constructivist and behavioral theories in relationship to how people learn and how their behaviour is affected especially when it comes to issues that affect them personally.

These criticizers observe that constructivism theory is a defective, helpful epistemology (Osborne 1996) as it tends in the direction of relativism (Matthew 1992; Phillips 1995); constructivism fail to break away from a traditional empiricist view (Matthews 1992), and it does not accurately depict the practice of science (Osborne 1996). As a model, constructivism has had considerable success in its analysis of didacticism. The types of different learning strategies it offers, and has since generated, have made an essential contribution to understanding of the learner and learning process (Staver 1997; Mushoriwa and Shumba 2002). Conversely, as a referent, Tobin and Tippins (1994) claim that constructivism suffers from mistakes that will constantly limit its potential and any entitlements to universality.

The theory fails to address learning that takes place outside a person, which is, learning that is kept and operated by technology since they say that learning occurs inside a person in his/her physical presence.

The complex sociotechnical systems theory, on the other hand, reflects how the systems affect the structure and design of the organizations which may, in turn, affect its performances of the theory and elaborated a rudimentary, pioneering model that focused on the workgroups. The model is reputed as too simplistic for the present thesis, and it was developed further for [providing a complete framework for understanding how the sociotechnical systems work.

 

 

2.2 Empirical Review.

2.2.1 The aviation safety evolution, and the historical background of information

According to Newton, every action has a reaction, the basis of aviation is that one action leads to another. Therefore, every action must be explained by several chains of events that are broken down into several items, technical parts, and word, etc. breaking issues into smaller incidences is the best way of dealing with issues to do with security primarily in the western world, that is to pinpoint and classify reasons that led to the incident (Dekker 2014). Authorities, media, business leaders, investigators, etc. tend to seek a goal, blameable person, cause of a bad apple and therefore, all the safety reports are categorized on the basis of reasons that led to the accident or an incident (Wong & Brook, 2015).

A study by William Heinrich showed the relationship between the number of accidents that caused serious harms and those which did not cause any harm. Heinrich advocated that for every accident that caused a major accident, there were 29 others that did not lead to major fatalities and 300 accidents that led to no injuries most of which had the main root cause and he concluded that, focusing on improving safety, the statistics could be much better (Heinrich 1931). The aviation industry has recognized that the socio-technological organization consist of complex interactions between humans and systems and a dynamic organizational structure is are more complex to predict and especially to pinpoint the main reason for a mishap despite the aviation industry categorizing incidents in their statistics (Dekker 2014; EASA 2015). The investigator incidents reports rarely point a single cause and often point to underlying latent errors , training flaws, among others in the reports,

2.2.2. Overall safety statistics in the European aviation.

Chart 2.1: Pie chart representing the number of persons killed in the EU territory in 2016 (Aerostat 2018)

According to aerostat, (2018) n the year 2016, a total of 150 passengers died in accidents that occurred within the E.U territory and they involved aircrafts registered in country in the EU. 85% of the accidents were caused by airplanes that the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) was below 2250kgs. A further 11% which correspond to 16 fatalities were registered as aerial work accidents, 4% of with 6 fatalities were registered under commercial air transport category. In the general aviation accidents, only 1 person was killed in flights over 225okg MTOM.

Of the accidents, 32 fatalities occurred in France, 25 in Spain, 16 in Germany and 13 in Hungary.

Table 2.1:  Air accident victims in commercial air transport by country of registry and country of occurrence (EASA, 2018)

In the table above, commercial air transport registered 550 fatalities worldwide 188 of which occurred in the E.U territory. Aerial work worldwide had 143 fatalities and 126 of them occurred in the EU territories Belgium and France had the highest number of fatalities as a result. As a result of general aviation aircraft above 2250kg MTOM, there were 23 fatalities all of which occurred within the EU territory 12 of these accidents occurred in the United Kingdom. 1020 fatalities were registered worldwide under general aviation aircrafts under 2250 MTOM and 1007 of these fatalities were within the EU territory. Germany and France had the highest number of fatalities (EASA 2018).

Graph2.1 Commercial air transport by the EU-28 registered aircraft number of people killed in transport accidents (Aerostat 2018)

Since 1990  there have been a numerous number of aviation fatalities  with 2015 having the highest number followed by1991, and then 2009 trails 1991 wiyh over 250 fatalities.   2010 and 2013 were the safestr years in aviation industriry with fatalities below 50 (Aerostat 2018).                                                                                                        

A table numbertof acidents from 2011-2016 by country of registation of the aircraft

From 2011 to 2016, there have been 200 commercial air accidents fatalities, 127 fatalities as a result of aerial work, 30 as a result of general aviation accidents involving aircraft above  2250kg MTOM and those below 2250 kg MTOM registered 1025 accidents fatalities (Aerostat 2018).

A graph showing the number of persons killed in air transport accidents EU-28 territory, regardless of country of the aircraft registration (Aerostat statistics, 2018)

In the graph above, the 28 territories of EU managed to register the highest number of deaths as a result of aviation accidents and also the lowest in 2010 where they had zero accidents and over 200 fatalities in the year 1991, and also over 150 accidents in the year 2015(Aerostat 2018).

2.2.3 Eras of aviation safety.

European aviation safety management statements are based on the recommendations made by ICAO and the annex 19 Chicago convention (Commission 2015). ICAO safety management manual gives a practical guide to implement the safety management systems at the operator and at the state level. That safety management manual in chapter 2 describes development of aviation safety, and the technical, human factors and then organizational era.

Technical era started in the 1900 to 1960s where the safety focus endeavours were therefore placed on, investigations, upgrading of technical factors. In the 50s technological improvements led to steady reduction in accidents occurrence and the safety procedures broadened to include the compliance and regulatory oversight

The human age started in the 70s to mid- 90s where the safety focus was prolonged to consist of some mortal aspects issues such as the man-machine crossing point. Presentation of these dynamics tended to focus on individuals without bearing in mind operative and the structural contexts. In the 1990s, it remained acknowledged that individuals who operate the flights in the complex environments and may have multiple factors that may affect the behaviour.

The organizational era started from the mid-1990s to today. In this era, safety was viewed from a systemic point, safety, therefore, encompassed the organizational elements in tallying to the human plus practical factors, this approach is based on data analysis making use of the reactive and the proactive methodologies and on the routine collection so as to monitor the already known protection risks to be able to track some developing protection concerns. The above improvements convey a logical improvements towards improving the safety of the society (ICAO, 2013).

There is the fourth era that is demonstrated by EASA which is the systems safety era which according to the IUCAO it is the organizational era and therefore the difference between the two is marginal. Researchers have addressed the issue of using statistics to show real safety trends which others argue that it might just be a false impression of absolute safety.  Some of the researchers concluded that there is lack of studies on why things go right, reverse logic of saying that there are no accidents is like saying that safety false and therefore the reasons for success (flights with no accidents) is what research should focus on (Dekker 2012; Hollande 2012; Townshend, 2013). As the world is becoming more interrelated and complex, it is usually hard to oversee just how a single component can influence another and therefore once accidents occur and absolute correct measure mayor input is wrong and therefore, it is almost impossible to predict the outcome. Implementing the state safety pan and the operator’s mandatory management systems together with definition of the organizational era in safety works is recognized by the European national civil aviation authorities and the EASA among others.

2.2.4 Safety management system- the safety culture

In the organizational era or according to the EASA the system safety era encompasses building a safety culture which is one of the main objectives on all levels from the EU and the EASA, state authorities, AOC holders among others and also to the sharp end. According to ICAO (2013), the definite responsibility for adherence and establishment of thorough safety practices rests in organizations management. The safety culture cannot be in effect until it is embedded within the organizational culture. There are four safety management systems components, the security rules makes sure  the top management’s willingness to continue enhancing the well-being, and it explains  the various ways, the steps and the organizational set-up that is required to meet the safety targets. The safety declaration will evaluate continued efficiency of the instigated strategies of risk regulator and also support the already laid threats. Danger supervision will determine adequacy and the necessity for different and revised risk controls that are laid on the foundation of assessment. Safety advancement on other hand consists of communication, exercise among other activities that are needed to form a positive organizational ethos with all levels of human labour (Ormerod & Dando, 2015).

Interaction of policies, safety assurance and the risk management will lead to promotion of safety and also a safety culture in the organization, the four components are tightly interrelated. This model can be applied at all organizational levels; the directives of the EU leads to EASA CAA SSP/SMS, EASp and operators of SMS. The EASA has launched a program that is called European Aviation Safety Plan (EASp), this plan is used to produce a European Union equivalent of ICAO state safety plan, the SSP where SMS is vital portion. The goal of the EASp is promotion of some efficient methods of discharging tasks and it will back up the members of the EU and the related states to develop their personal SSP’s (EU 2014).

2.2.5 Relationship between safety management and safety management systems (SMS)

Kaspers et al., (2017), conducted a study on measuring safety in aviation which revealed that, there are several challenges in regards to the safety metrics that are used in aviation. One of their conclusion was that there is inadequate empirical evidence ion the link between SMS processes and the safety outcomes. They used data from 7 European airlines. The results indicated that there is limited value of linear thinking that is followed by the industry, the diversity in safety management systems implementation in companies renders single use of output metrics not sufficient for assessing impact of the SMS practices, and that only flight hours seems as an effective denominator in safety performances indicator, increased flight hours lead to more accidents.

2.2.6 Compliance to Easa Standards in UK, UAE, and France

In any case, the aviation industry has proved to be an essential concerning globalization and in facilitating faster economic integrations. In this respect, it is vital to take into account the extents to which countries comply with Easa standards. The United Kingdom (UK), United Arab Emirates (UAE), and France have been chosen for this comparison.

In the UK, the Brexit negotiations have led to new discussions regarding Easa compliance. As a result of this, there have been existing discussions on a withdrawal agreement that is taking place on a two-year time frame (Easa, 2018, Brexit). In addition, there should be transitional agreements and in the end, this spells that the UK will not be required to follow Easa’s guidelines, and may instead draft a new plan with their UK Civil Aviation Authority. However, general safety requirements will apply. As a result of the air horizontal agreement signed by the EU and UAE in 2007, EU airlines are allowed to fly in between their prerequisite routes (European Commission, n.d). Due to this, the UAE is required to maintain that its airports abide by the Easa standards and that airport hangers are effectively managed to ensure the safety repairing and frequent evaluation of airplanes. Admittedly, Easa seeks to ensure that the UAE can ensure the same level of airworthiness that is required in Europe. Concerning, France, it has had the highest number of accidents which stand at two hundred and fifty six for general aviation facilities (Easa data). For one, France is required to utilize the AERODIAGNOSTIC tool which is a practical tool designed for aero clubs to support safety management, risk assessment, and learning from experiences (Easa, 2018, Aerodiagnostic). In the same way, France is required to comply with frequent airplane checks such as a certification that validates every major commercial flight as being fit for use. In the end, the UK, UAE, and France present clear cases of how Easa compliance is applied across different regions.

2.2.10 Knowledge Gap and Key Uncertainties

Millions of people travel by air daily each with a different language and desire and all of them are valuable with great expectations of reasonable service from the industry. There might be need for extra dialogue with some passengers to ensure that the others are safe, there are very few studies that explains the passengers’ attitude towards this yet it might be a good security measure (Krüger & Suchan, 2015.

It is usually difficult to draw quantitative conclusions on security performance given the adaptation and evolution of those who are a threat to security and defenders since historical data does not provide full insight on likely future results. There is therefore a need to obtain more intelligence information that can be used to reduce uncertainty. This knowledge can be from intelligence research and periodicals etc.

Communication is divided into starting communication, inquiring during questioning, then closing inquiry and clearing the passenger. There is limited knowledge on use of words that will create cognitive comfort yet they are vital for healthy security and comfort of passengers.

In light of the above research, there is a lot of research that has been done on aviation security but has not examined securitization in relation to EASA standards or wheather the member comply to the standards.

Chapter 3

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter will present research design and methodology that the researcher will use in carrying out the study. The chapter is consist of research design and methodology, sample size,  target population, and sampling procedure, data collection instruments, data analysis procedure, data collection procedures validity and reliability, and also ethical considerations.

3.1 Research Design and Methodology

This section consists of a plan of data gathering, including the following; research plan, target population, explanation of research tools, explanation of sample and sampling processes, the depiction of data gathering techniques and lastly the description of collected data summarizing procedures.

3.2 Research Design

The research design used includes general strategy that will be selected to integrate the unique components of the coverage in a coherent together with logical way of ensuring that every research difficulty is addressed.

The scope will use an explanatory survey research design since it may be used to collect data and relevant information concerning people on certain matters concerning aviation security. It further optimizes capabilities of qualitative together with quantitative research approaches.

3.3 Target Population

Based on Mugenda & Mugenda 1494 goal population is the inhabitants a researcher wants to do comprehensive results.

This study targets 149 stakeholders in the aviation industry and among them, 50 personnel should from the AESA office.

3.4 Description of Research Tools

The core data gathering instrument which will be needed in the set study to collect field data might be questionnaire. Which will layout the purpose of assembling primary statistics both qualitative and quantitative; the reasons for using the information include;

  • Its capacities of being reached by many individuals within a very short time.
  • Ability to give the audience enough time to give
  • It offers confidentiality to the audience.

3.5 Validity and reliability of research instruments

3.5.1Validity

This is the extent to which proof and theory provision the interpretation of test tallies entailed using trials. It is also the correctness and significance of implications which are founded on research outcomes (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999).the research tools which will be legalized in the context of contented face legitimacy.

3.5.2 Reliability.

This is the potential displayed by the research tools to continually measure features of interests over a period and the extent to which research instrument yield positive outcomes or data after recurring trials. The examiner will measure reliability/dependability/steadiness of the set questionnaire using tests retest procedures which will involve governing identical test twice to the similar group of respondents who had been spotted for the purpose of the investigation.

3.6 Sample and Sampling Techniques

A sample can be described as a group or subgroup gained from the available population (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003; 2012).this subclass will be keenly chosen so as to set a representative of the entire population with the applicable features. Every individual in this model is referred to as respondents or contenders.

Sampling may be described as a procedure or technique of selecting a subgroup from a given population to take part in the study (Ogula, 2005). It is the process of acquiring a number of persons for a study in a way that the individuals selected to represent the bigger group from where they were obtained.

3.6.1 Snowball sampling.

This is a technique that is used for finding the hard to reach objects. In snowball sampling, one subject will lead to another and the snowball will grow as it rolls. It is more effective when the researcher is interviewing people who know each other (Vogt & Johnson 2011). The technique is also used to reach hidden populations.

Advantages of the technique

  • The series of referral procedure lets researchers influence people that are inflexible to sample using other means of sampling.
  • These procedures are simple and cost-efficient.
  • The stated sampling method requires less preparation and a smaller number of labour compared to other sampling methods.

Detriments in Snowball Sampling

  • The researcher is left with very little control oversampling technique.
  • Representativeness of samples is not certain
  • Researchers fear sampling biases and especially while manipulating this sampling method. The original focuses lean towards nominating people they acknowledge (NN 2017)

3.6.1.1 Descriptive extensive snowballing technique.

This is the method that was chosen. The paper uses descriptive approach to categorize a phenomena or views that support security, fatigue, and cross-references category of the just culture which may lead to understanding in the view of people who in the average group under study (Marczyk et al,. 2005). Using some electronic questionnaires, we will be able to reach a large group of people and therefore we will have an understanding and therefore we will have an extensive approach. The qualitative, method will be based upon inductive method where empirical findings will support the theoretical background (Johannsen et al., 2004).

3.7 Description of Data Collection Procedure

These are methods that will be used to collect data for the study. They are fact-finding strategies including questionnaires, interviews, and observation and reading documents.

3.7.1 Questionnaires

These are systematically prepared forms with set of questions deliberately planned to elicit information from respondents. In this research both structured and unstructured questionnaires will be used. Electronic questionnaires will be used in this case since the researcher wants to cover a wide area which encompasses states and countries; emailing the questionnaires to the selected persons in the selected countries across. Using emails is the best, method to reach these populations.

3.7.2 Interviews

The study will use open ended to collect data from respondents as they see face to face this therefore will permit for extraction of thorough information. The researcher will interview the top executives at the EASA to obtain the necessary information.

3.7.3 Observation

Important photographs, videotapes, tape recordings and other materials will be studied during this research.

3.7.4 Documents analysis

These will be used to obtain information about the program of the schools which the research is based; the researcher will look for the documents prepared by the chosen schools to obtain the desired information.

3.7.4.1 Article selection

Defining the exclusion criteria was very helpful in this study as it helped me focus on the relevant study topics. The criterion was identified in accordance to the pertinence search objectives. The first step was though the marked date, key words of the articles, also the combination with the number of records that were retrieved and number of citations. The search continues where I manually selected other publications that were connected to the article through citations and I retrieved them during the research. I consulted different databases and included trials, observational studies, key opinions of the leaders and limited the citations to the original article on the same topic.

The articles were critically evaluated in accordance to the key results, the limitations, and appropriateness of methods that were used to test the initial hypothesis, the quality of results obtained, how those results were interpreted and finally the impact of the conclusion of the article in the field of study. In a case of omitted evidence or inconsistencies in the results, other articles were integrated to make up for it (McMillan, 2008).

3.8 Description of Data Analysis Procedures

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches will be used for data analysis.

Qualitative data from the study generated from the open-ended questions in the questionnaires, interview guides, and observation and from documents analysis guides. Qualitative data will then be evaluated manually and will be categorized in subjects in accordance with research objectives and then reported. After careful analysis, information will be presented using diverse techniques as deemed suitable such as narrations, explanations and discussions

3.9 Statement of Ethical Considerations

The researcher will seek permission from the transport board to be permitted to collect data. Permission of entry into the airports to interview the passengers and the personnel for the study will be obtained from the departmental heads or the management. The researcher will also seek consent of the organizational heads in order to get permission to interact with personnel and the passengers in the designated airports. The researcher will explain clearly the drive of the excise to the participants prior to the commencement of the research. No respondent will be forced to contribute the needed information, except those who are willing to will contribute in this study. When conducting the survey I will maintain strict anonymity of the companies that are participating and personnel. Preserve the company’s confidential information. Build a trusting association of equals that are based on reciprocated inter-dependence and respect. Humility, two-way dialogue, ability to listen, put away the preconceived notions, have an ability to handle challenges and disagreement, have the ability to stand back on or after the details and see general data patterns and not making judgement on any company or one individual. The questionnaires may contain information that should be treated with confidentiality and based on my interpretation value of each category will be reported.

Conflict of interest in research is also likely to occur. It is a situation in which a researcher has the potential to influence or compromise professional judgment. In this study, the researcher shall honour the responsibility and treat the participants professionally to avoid personal biases and unethical inclinations. It is also important to put into consideration the regulations given by the Catholic University of Eastern Africa concerning postgraduate students publishing before graduation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.0 Introduction

This chapter describes data analysis and research findings. The findings relate to research questions that guided the study. Data was analysed to identify, describe and analyse aviation security in relation to EASA standards. Data was obtained from administered questionnaires, completed by 100 respondents (n=100) a 100% response rate. The interview guide for management and passengers were completed by all targeted 40 respondents (n=40).

A total of 80 questionnaires were received, and all 80 questionnaires were usable for this study and met the criteria. The information that was received from the interviews was also recorded for analysis.

4.1 instrument return rate

This study management, staff, and passengers in France, UK and Germany.

Country Staff Management Passengers
France 20 5 5
United kingdom 20 5 10
Germany 20 10 5
Total 60 20 20

Table 4.1. Instruments return rate (field data, 2018)

20 interview guides were used for management and 20 of them were answered. Out of 60 questionnaires and 20 interview schedule administered to the head of departments, EASA and management. All the questionnaires were administered through email and the interview was conducted over the phone.            This return rate was sufficient for the researcher to make generalized conclusion about the study.

4.2 Demographic characteristics of the respondents

This section represents the demographic information of the respondents with the aim of establishing their background that participated in this study. The areas discussed include gender, age, work experience and if the respondent have ever been involved in an accident.

4.2.1 Gender of respondents

The researcher sought to establish the gender of the respondents through a section that was included in the questionnaire which sought information of respondents by gender. Out of 60 respondents that filled the questionnaire, that 25 questionnaires which represented 41.6% of the population were male and 35 which represented 58.4% of the respondents were female. This data is represented accordingly as shown below.

Source: (field data, 2018)

Figure 4.1: gender of the respondents.

From the findings, the results indicated that that the majority of the respondents were female, 58.4%. The findings imply that there are more female than male in the industry.

4.2.2 Respondents’ age

This question item sought to find the age distribution of the respondents .age was grouped in bracket of 25 and below, 26-40, 41-60 and 60 and above. It was established that 30% were 25 years and below, 25% were between 26-40 years, 34% were between 41-60 years, 11% were 60. This is shown in the graph below.

Figure 4.2: Respondents age (Field data, 2018)

Age is considered to have a very big effect on the uptake of new advancements such as security measures that are put forward by EASA. The findings reveal that majority of the respondents were between 41-60 years. These are energetic and well experienced workforce and their response reflects highly on the attitudes of staff and experience.

4.2.3 Level of education of the respondents.

Respondents were asked to tick the level of education category. All the participants responded to the question. Level of education was categorized as certificate, diploma, and bachelor degree in education, masters and PhD. It was established that 5% of the respondents had certificate for their qualification, 13% diploma, 57% degree, master’s graduates consisted of 25% of the respondent and none had a PhD level of education. This is shown by the pie chart below;

Figure 4.3: educational level of respondents

Source: (field data, 2018)

4.2.4 Years that the respondents have been working with the airline

It was necessary to find out the number of years that our respondents have taught in our various schools. From the study it was established that,17% have taught between 1-5  years,13% have taught between 6-10 years, 15% have taught between 11-15 years,34% have taught between 16-20 years and 21% have taught for 21 years and above as shown in the table below.

Years Frequency %age
1-5 10 17
6-10 8 13
11-15 12 20
16-20 15 25
21 and above 15 25

 

Table 4.2: Number of year’s respondents have worked with the airline Source: (field data, 2018)

4.3 Nature of the airline and being involved in an accident

The questionnaire sought to find out whether the airline is public or private. This would be used to analyse the nature of airlines that register more accidents.

Been in an accident

Nature of company Yes No
Private 20 33.3% 7 13
Public 40 66.7 11 29

Table 4.3: Nature of airline Source: (field data, 2018)

Of the 60 respondents to the questionnaires, 20 of them work with a private company while 40 of them work in public companies. 7 respondents in the private come=panty were involved in an accident while there were 11 respondents in public companies who were involved in accidents.

4.4 General question on safety

20 respondents were based in Germany, 20 were in UK and 20 were in Spain and all of them were citizens of that country and they all fly for their countries. 13 of the respondents fly for a cargo company, 3 charter/leisure companies, 14 for a helicopter company, and 10 of them are in business and 10 general aviation. Of the respondents, 10 were pilots, 10 were clerks, 30 were passengers and the other 10 were general staff (air hostesses, captains, aeronautical engineer). Of the 60 respondents, none of them of were at a management level. Of those in France, the block hours, mean of was 13 hours, in United Kingdom the mean hours was 11 and in Germany, the mean hours were 10. Most respondents skipped the question on estimating their yearly income and therefore it was removed from the study.

20 respondents had not heard of the EASA standards, 29 had heard of them and they were strictly followed and 11 have heard them and know them and do not follow them. 40 respondents reported that there was a voluntary pilot reporting system in their country while the other 20 reported that the question does not apply to them. All respondents reported that voicing concerns on safety is encouraged. 30 respondents reported that the SMS at their company is proactive while the other 30 responded that it was reactive.

4.5. Securitization

This section sought to find the general perception and compliance to EASA standards.

 

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Information on safety related changes within this company is clearly communicated to staff. 20 23 4 9 4
We learn lessons from safety related incident or occurrence investigations. 20 25 0 9 6
If I reported an error I am confident my company would treat me according to “just culture” principals, i.e. make a clear distinctions between human errors and “reckless conduct/ gross negligence/wilful misconduct”. 10 14 30 10 4
There are many benefits that comes along with being an EASA member state 44 4 11 1 0
People are well acquitted with the EASA securitization measures 12 1 6 8 33
The staff in the company share information related to safety often 32 18 10 0 0

Table 4.4: Perception of compliance to EASA standards Source: (field data, 2018)

20 strongly disagreed, 23 respondents disagreed that the safety related changes are clearly communicated to the staff. The table shows that most respondents do not learn lessons from investigations relating to incidences or occurrences. It also shows that, most of them are not confident that if the company would treat them according to just culture principles if they reported an error. Most of them believed that there are benefits that come as a result of being an EASA member state and that people are not well acquainted with EASA standards.32 strongly agreed that they often share security information 18 strongly agreed while 0 reported that they were not sure.

4.6 Securitization and compliance with EASA standards between member states

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
My company fully supports my decision if I step down from duty because of fatigue 10 12 30 5 3
Colleagues sometimes are fatigued to a level where flight safety is at risk. 8 11 1 20 20
Before the flight leaves the airport, aeronautical engineers have to check and ascertain that it is safe to travel with the aircraft 30 23 7 0 0
The airplanes have to be upto the standard that are set by the EASA 12 14 12 18 4
We often go on trainings to learn on the safety measures, standards, criteria set by EASA. 29 20 0 0 11
I feel that we follow the standrds to the letter 6 10 0 10 34

Table 4.5: securitization and compliance within member states Source: (field data, 2018)

This part reported on data on securitization and compliance with the standards from the employees’ point of view. Most respondents were not sure if the company would support their decision to step down, this shows that the management id unpredictable. Fatigue is a major cause of accidents and if there is compliance, the answers received were diverse however 20 of them disagreed while 20 strongly disagreed. Half the respondents agreed that the flights are checked by the engineers to ensure that the flight is in the right condition to fly. Most of the respondents reported that they undergo training on safety measures, standards and criteria set by EASA, however, more than half on them reported that they do not follow the criteria to the letter.

 

4.7 Effectiveness of the criteria

 The respondents were asked to indicate the level of agreement that you have with the following statements on effective ness criteria.

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
The criteria set by EASA has helped reduce the number of accidents 44 0 14 0 0
I would say that for a fact that we follow the criteria set by EASA and it is effective 6 10 0 10 34

Table 4.6: Effectiveness of the criteria Source: (field data, 2018)

A good number of respondents (n=44) reported that EASA criteria help reduce accidents while 14 were not sure. 34 respondents reported that they strongly disagreed while 10 disagreed that they follow the EASA criteria which is a big number.

4.8 Stakeholders’ attitudes

The respondents were asked to rate how they would rate the following attitudes in regards to how they affect aviation security. The researcher used a scale of 1-5 where 1 = no extent, 2 = little extent, 3 = moderate extent, 4 = great extent and 5 is to a very great extent.

Statement 5 4 3 2 1
Education level 44 6 7 3 0
Country of origin 3 1 2 3 51
Distrust among staff 51 4 5 0 0
Poor inter-professional communication 51 6 3 0 0
Fatigue 59 1 0 0 0
Depression and stress 31 11 10 8 0
Body image dissatisfaction 3 2 13 12 30

Table 4.7 Stakeholders attitudes Source: (field data, 2018)

44 respondents reported that education level at a very great extent affect aviation security while, 6 reported it affects at a great extent, 7 at a moderate extent and 2 reported that it affects it at a little extent, none thought that it doesn’t affect security. 3 respondents reported that education level at a very great extent affect aviation security while, 1 reported it affects at a great extent, 2 at a moderate extent and 3 reported that it affects it at a little extent, 51 thought that it  affect security at no extent. 85% reported that poor inter-professional relations affected aviation security at a very great extent, 99% (n=59) reported that fatigue at a very great extent affect security. On depression and stress, the staff reported that affected security at a great extent (n=31) which is more than half of the population. Most respondents felt that body image dissatisfaction affected security ant a no extent.

4.9 Management response

This study involved 20 mangers from different airports and different companies. Ten of the respondents worked with EASA while the other 10 were mangers at different airports and companies in the aviation industry. Not all questions will be reported since the answers provided were too diverse.

The most common causes of accident that were reported by the management personnel were fatigue (14), technical failures (12), bad weather (14), and human error (17). All 20 respondents were familiar with the EASA securitization criteria and standards. 13 of the respondents had started programs in their company to ensure that there aimed at ensuring that there was compliance with the EASA standards. The main objective for these programs was to ensure that the personnel were well equipped with required knowledge on security and implement it in the field however, 3 of them confirmed that they follow their own criteria, 7 confirmed that they follow the EASA standards and 10 partly follow the criteria. On the question of the number of accidents one has experienced, 13 of them reported less than three while 3 reported that they have experienced 7, and the other 4 reported that they had experienced more than 8 accidents most of which were the EASA officials and respondents in France. One compliance, the respondent deemed this question sensitive and 12 of them did not answer whether or not there were factors that made it harder to comply with EASA standards, 5 answered no to this question and the other 3 answered yes and reported that lack of trained manpower, limited number of employees, and tight budgets were among the reasons why it is hard to follow the standards. Most of the respondents said that the measures that would be put in place to deal with non-compliance were dependent on the company and other said that allocation of necessary resources, proper training would help with compliance issues. At the end of the phone interview, they all made recommendations in relation to aviation security.

4.10 Interview for passengers

20 passengers were involved in this study and were selected at random and interviewed. 16 passengers reported that they felt completely safe while travelling with the airline, 2 respondents did not feel entirely safe while the other 2 reported that they did not feel safe at all. All 20 respondents reported that they would recommend the airline company to enhance security more. 4 reported that they have experienced something that made them feel that their security is threatened and gave example of strange looking persons and the fact that airline companies do not properly check passengers before they enter the plane, however, none of the passengers had an idea on what the EASA standards are.

CHAPTER 5:

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

5.0 Introduction

This chapter covers discussions of results, based on the study findings and suggestions for further studies.

5.1 Discussion

Theoretical background of compliance with EASA standards and differences within different countries are combined in the discussion below. This discussion will focus on the negative and also the positive effect of compliance (ref. statistical data in chapter 2 on aviation mortality, compliance within the member countries). The discussion will also focus on the data that was reported in chapter 4. The following areas were found to a great extent affect aviation security.

Information: this is where people are knowledgeable about the technical, human and organizational factors that determine safety.

Flexibility: this is where people can adapt to facing unusual circumstances, shift from the established methods of doing things and allow for better and improved way of doing things.

Willingness: stakeholders should be willing to report on errors and poor safety culture and especially in case of non-compliance which may risk lives and the management should be willing to cat on the information they receive without judgement.

Learning: the study utilized a learning theory (ref, chapter 2), this is because, for efficiency, people in the aviation industry should always be willing to learn new ways of doing things, use safety information system, and reporting and draw informed conclusions that should be implemented to better security.

Accountability: the stakeholders should be awarded for providing safety related information and the companies should make clear the differences between the unacceptable and the acceptable behaviour which the stakeholders should comply with, especially the EASA standards.

The objective of this study was to check if member states comply with the EASA standards and generally examining aviation security. The results show that the overall compliance with the EASA standards generally compromised. This can therefore explain why there are increased numbers of aviation accidents that are experienced within the EU territory and especially in France. According to the results, a large number of stakeholders partly aware of the EASA standards and those which are aware of them do not necessarily abide to them and instead they have other set standards.

Passengers also have their concern and they are not sure if they are safe or not. The fact that most of them do not know what the standards are or what EASA is, shows that there is need to spread awareness to them so that they can also help in reporting on aviation security concerns for a safer aviation.

On the part of management, they mentioned that technical failures, fatigue, human error and bad weather resulted to the moist accidents in the industry, apart from bad weather, the other there can be done away if the set standards were followed. In this era, the aviation industry should not be blaming fatal accidents at technical failures and errors. Although human is to err, the standards and measures are put in place to ensure that these errors do not occur at any point. All of the management personnel who participated in this study were familiar with the standards and only a few follow them. This shows that the problem starts from the top and trickles down to staff.

The study also sought to find out the effect of staff attitudes towards security measures put in place. The participant’s strongly felt that there are things that affect aviation security and strongly felt that, poor inter-professional communication, distrust among staff, fatigued workers, and stress and depression influence security and therefore, their impact on security and staff should be minimized depending on how prevalent they are at the organizational level to enhance security.

Finally, the study looked into effectiveness of criteria set by the EASA. According to data by Aerostat (ref, chapter 2). There are still many fatal accidents that occurs within the EU territory, this is an indication that there are still ineffectiveness that are experienced when it comes to effectiveness of the criteria. In this study, management stated that they were familiar with the AESA standards but did not follow them to the letter and therefore we can say for sure that the securitization criterion is not very effective.

5.2 Conclusion

The individuals reporting shows that a vast majority think that safety is at risk and that compliance with the EASA standards is only a thing that is whispered across state lines but not fully followed.  It is therefore correct to assume that lack of compliance from the EU member countries and failure to follow the set standards are directly affecting aviation security. In this study and surveys that were done in relation to aviation security like Eskamen (2016) and Jorens eta al., (2015), we can see that fatigue, regulation areas, of great concern, non-compliance with the set standards, among others will render the national safety and companies management systems less efficient in the long run if left unaddressed. The calumnious cloud in the European aviation may be embedded but they can be disclosed by surveys.

 

CHAPTER 6

 RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTED AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

6.0 Introduction

This chapter covers recommendations based on the study findings and suggestions for further studies.

6.1 Recommendations

  • There is need to take urgent action to validate these findings in this survey towards aviation security which discloses that there is no compliance and therefore it is an area of great concern towards the safety of flights all over the world. Non-compliance must be addressed and action taken against sates which do not comply.
  • EASA is recommended to improve SMS efficiency at regulator levels, enable direct information channels with sharp ends, and invest in a culture of being informed and compliance by highly fining those who are found to not meet the set standards.
  • It is very crucial for EASA under the European Union to train on the compliance skills and the standards that are set in order to increase compliance among member states, confidence while carrying out flight operations and encourage them to integrate SMS in their day to day operations. Participation, contribution and partnership of a broad range of stakeholders including government departments, regulatory authorities, broadcasters, telecom operators, software developers, and end users should be employed to ensure that the EASA goal of ensuring aviation safety is achieved.

6.2 Suggested areas for further studies

  1. How culture influence compliance with various standards that are put in place by organizations.
  2. The effect of personnel attitudes towards implementation of EASA standards
  3. Role of the customers/passengers in aviation security.
  4. The effectiveness of the security measures put in place by different aviation companies.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STAFF

Dear Respondent,

Serial No.

My name is (…) a post graduate student at (;;;)  I am carrying out a study on aviation security in relation to EASA standard among the carefully chosen personnel and passengers in selected countries which are EU member states. You have been selected to participate in this study and I would like you answer the following questions. Your name should not appear anywhere on this questionnaire. Please answer all the questions by putting a tick (√) against the appropriate response and filling in the blank spaces where appropriate.

Self-administered questionnaire

Thank you in advance.

 

Section I: Demographic Data (Please tick (√) where applicable)

  1. What is your gender?

Male    [      ]    Female [      ]

  1. What is your age bracket?

Below 25years [    ]     26-40 years [    ]      41-60 years [    ] above 60 years [    ]

  1. How many years have you been working with the airline?

1-5 [    ]           6-10 [     ] 11-15 [    ] 16-20 [    ] Above 20 [  ]

  1. Have you ever been involved in an accident while working in the airline?

Yes [    ] No [    ]

What is the country of the registration of the spacecraft?

 

What is the nature of the airline?

Public [    ]      Private             [    ]

 

Yes      [   ]       No       [    ]

Section II: GENERAL QUESTIONS ON SAFETY

  1. Please fill the questions below
Question text Response
What is the country that you are based in?
What is your nationality?
What country do you mainly fly for?
What type of company do you fly for?(e.g. Network, low cost, charter/leisure, cargo, aerial work/ambulance/surveillance, helicopter, business/General Aviation)
What type if contact do you have
Do you have part time-year in your current company?
What is your job title?
Do you have a management role?
Estimate your total block hours
Estimate your yearly income
Has your company implemented a Safety Management System (SMS)?
Is there a voluntary pilot reporting system in the country (CAA) where your company’s AOC is registered?
Is voicing concerns regarding safety in your company encouraged?
Do you consider your company’s safety management system reactive or proactive?

 

Section III: Securitization

  1. Please indicate the level of agreement that you have with the following statements on securitization in relation to EASA standards. Key: 1-Strongly Agree; 2-Agree; 3-Undecided; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree.

 

 

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Information on safety related changes within this company is clearly communicated to staff.
We learn lessons from safety related incident or occurrence investigations.
If I reported an error I am confident my company would treat me according to “just culture” principals, i.e. make a clear distinctions between human errors and “reckless conduct/ gross negligence/wilful misconduct”.
There are many benefits that comes along with being an EASA member state
People are well acquitted with the EASA securitization measures
The staff in the company share information related to safety often

 

Section IV: securitization and compliance with EASA standards between member states (Please tick (√) where applicable)

What is the greatest threat to aviation safety in EU member states?

 

  1. Please indicate the level of agreement that you have with the following statements. Key: 1-Strongly Agree; 2-Agree; 3-Undecided; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree.

 

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
My company fully supports my decision if I step down from duty because of fatigue
Colleagues sometimes are fatigued to a level where flight safety is at risk.
Before the flight leaves the airport, aeronautical engineers have to check and ascertain that it is safe to travel with the aircraft
The airplanes have to be upto the standard that are set by the EASA
We often go on trainings to learn on the safety measures, standards, criteria set by EASA.
I feel that we follow the standrds to the letter

 

Section IV: Effectiveness of the criteria (Please tick (√) where applicable)

  1. Please indicate the level of agreement that you have with the following statements. Key: 1-Strongly Agree; 2-Agree; 3-Undecided; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree.
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
The criteria set by EASA has helped reduce the number of accidents
I would say that for a fact that we follow the criteria set by EASA and it is effective

 

Section V: Stakeholders’ attitudes (Please tick (√) where applicable)

How would you rate the following attitudes in regards to how they affect aviation security Use a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = no extent, 2 = little extent, 3 = moderate extent, 4 = great extent and 5 is to a very great extent.

Statement 5 4 3 2 1
           
Education level
Country of origin
Distrust among staff
Poor inter-professional communication
Fatigue
Depression and stress
Body image dissatisfaction

 

-THE END-

 

“Thank You for Taking Part in the Study”

 

 

 

APPENDIX III: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR MANAGEMENT

 

INTERVIEW GUIDE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL HEADS

Dear Respondent,

Serial No.

My name is [….] a post graduate student at […..]. I am carrying out a study on aviation security. You have been selected to participate in this study and I would like you answer the following questions. Your name is not supposed to appear in any of this interview guide. Please help me to answer all the questions by writing on the question provided against the appropriate response where appropriate.

 

Thank you in advance.

Instructions

Tick and write where necessary appropriately.

 

  1. Please indicate you gender.

Male (  ) Female (  )

  1. For how long have you served in the airline?

1-5 years (  )                6-10 years (  )

10 years and above (  )

  1. Comment on the general situation of security in your company

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. Comment on the known causes of accidents in the airline

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. How familiar are you with the EASA standards and criteria for securitization?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. Have you introduced any programmes in your company to ensure that there is compliance with the set standards?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

If yes, what are their main objectives?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

…….……………………………………………………………………………………

 

  1. Would you say with certainty that you follow the criteria?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. Have you experienced accidents in the past? If yes, what do you think was the main cause of the accident?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. How many cases of accidents have you experienced?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

 

  1. Why do you think about EASA standards?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. From your own experience with the company, is there any link between insecurity in the industry by passengers and non-compliance issues?

Yes (  ) No (  )

If so, to what extent does non-compliance affect security?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. What is the main cause of accidents in the industry?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. Are there factors making it hard to comply with EASA standards?

Yes (  ) No (  )

If yes what are these factors making it hard to comply with the set standard? Please name them

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

 

  1. Which measures has the company put in place to curb the culture of non-compliance?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. What the challenges you encounter in relation to EASA standards?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. What recommendations would you like to make in relation to aviation security

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION

 

APPENDIX III: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PASSENGERS

 

INTERVIEW GUIDE TO THE PASSENGERS

Dear Respondent,

Serial No.

My name is [….] a post graduate student at […..]. I am carrying out a study on aviation security. You have been selected to participate in this study and I would like you answer the following questions. Your name is not supposed to appear in any of this interview guide. Please help me to answer all the questions by writing on the question provided against the appropriate response where appropriate.

 

Thank you in advance.

Instructions

Tick and write where necessary appropriately.

 

  1. Please indicate you gender.

Male (  ) Female (  )

  1. For how long have you been travelling with the airline?

1-5 years (  )                6-10 years (  )

10 years and above (  )

  1. Do you feel safe when travelling with the airline? If yes, why?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

  1. What would you recommend the airline to do to enhance security more?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

  1. a) Have you experienced something in the airline that would make you feel that your security is threatened?

Yes [   ] No [   ]

  1. b) If yes, what?
Share this Post