Search results

If aeroplanes and passengers, as well as property and people on the ground are to be protected, potential perpetrators of aviation terrorism must be prevented from breaching security checkpoints and gaining access to ‘secure’ airport areas and to aircrafts. Given the interconnectedness of the air transportation system, a sufficiently high level of security must be provided throughout the entire system. In this chapter we examine terrorism issues relevant to airline and airport security internationally, a topic that has received much attention since 9/11. Understanding the key issues is crucial in evaluating the various methods of regulating and providing aviation safety and security. The purpose of this chapter is to review the key features of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and the characteristics of the resulting security policy. Then we examine terrorism, previous terrorists' acts against aviation as well as current and future aviation threats. A summary of our major points completes the chapter.

This paper presents the safety case for the consideration of cross-cultural factors in aviation by focusing on cultural interfaces, those situations where members of one culture encounter people or artifacts from other cultures. Global aviation is strongly influenced by the USA and Western Europe as the largest manufacturers and largest customers; hence almost all cultural interfaces are weighted in favor of the dominant users. The challenge for safety is not to ignore or eliminate these interfaces but to manage the potential threats they pose. To move forward, there is a role for those inside and outside the dominant model.

In response to recent calls to better understand the brain’s role in organizational behavior, we propose a series of theoretical tests to examine the question “can brains manage?” Our tests ask whether brains can manage without bodies and without extracranial resources, whether they can manage in social isolation, and whether brains are the ultimate controllers of emotional and cognitive aspects of organizational behavior. Our analysis shows that, to accomplish work-related tasks in organizations, the brain relies on and closely interfaces with the body, interpersonal and social dynamics, and cognitive and emotional processes that are distributed across persons and artifacts. The results of this “thought experiment” suggest that the brain is more appropriately conceived as a regulatory organ that integrates top-down (i.e., social, artifactual and environmental) and bottom-up (i.e., neural) influences on organizational behavior, rather than the sole cause of that behavior. Drawing on a socially situated perspective, our analysis develops a framework that connects brain, body and mind to social, cultural, and environmental forces, as significant components of complex emotional and cognitive organizational systems. We discuss the implications for the emerging field of organizational cognitive neuroscience and for conceptualizing the interaction between the brain, cognition and emotion in organizations.

Beginning with the premise that “organizational culture” is a useful heuristic for the study of gender at work, this chapter focuses on the problem of studying the culture of organizations over time, setting out to demonstrate how the social construction of corporate history has, until now, lent itself to gendered notions of business practices. Arguing that history itself is but one of a series of discourses about the world, the chapter outlines a feminist strategy for the study of organizational culture over time that includes: (i) feminist historiography as history written from a feminist point of view; (ii) a commitment to the notion of history as discourse rooted in the present; (iii) a view of women’s rights development as a paradoxical process of progress and regress; (iv) a gender focus approach that studies the impact of discrimination on the social construction of masculinity/femininity and sexual preference; and (v) an approach that is sensitive to the contextualization of gender. British Airways is used as a case study to illustrate some of the problems of historic re/construction and feminist historiography.

In the aviation sector adversity faced by female pilots stemming from stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are well documented. Such adversity in the workplace can cause occupational stress, which may be greater for female pilots, and this influences individual resiliency, impacting job performance and wellbeing. Resilience may be a mitigating factor for coping with occupational stress and individual resilience can be factored into an organisation’s resilience as a whole. When organisations face challenges, there is a need for resilience in order to survive and adapt during disruption and adversity. Resilience with respect to employee and workplace contexts includes both personal resources among the employees as well as workplace resources that are connected to the workplace and organisational environment. As resilience continues to emerge as part of a human capital management strategy, the need to understand the role of the workplace is magnified. For aviation, understanding resilience can potentially inform organisational interventions to address the known occupational stressors and workplace adversity to increase employee performance and well-being. The role of workplace adversity and perceptions of workplace resource availability including supportive environments are discussed in relation to how they influence employee resilience specifically in the aviation industry. The aim of this chapter is to define resilience specific to employee and workplace contexts, introduce personal and workplace resources to influence employee resilience, and discuss the role of occupational stressors specifically for women in male-dominated career fields such as aviation.

SD is defined as a failure to sense correctly the attitude, motion, and/or position of the aircraft with respect to the surface of the earth (Benson, 2003). The types of SD are generally thought to be “unrecognized” and “recognized” (Previc & Ercoline, 2004). Although a third type has been reported (incapacitating), this type seems irrelevant to UAV operations. Unrecognized SD occurs when the person at the controls is unaware that a change in the motion/attitude of the aircraft has taken place. The cause is often the result of a combination of sub-threshold motion and inattention. This type of SD is known to be the single most serious human factors reason for aircraft accidents today, accounting for roughly 90% of all known SD-related mishaps (Davenport, 2000). Recognized SD occurs when a noticeable conflict is created between the actual motion/attitude of the aircraft and any one of the common physiological sensory mechanisms (e.g., visual, vestibular, auditory, and tactile). Recognized SD is the most common type of SD, accounting for the remaining SD-related accidents.