+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Description

Please follow the instructions attached below. I will attach links too. For part A you must you at least 2 of the links I have attached below in the essay.

For part A

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014920639001600304

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/13937

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957582019315125

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753520300576

For part B

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002013839090154M

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/298/6674/651.full.pdf

https://www.jesip.org.uk/uploads/media/incident_reports_and_inquiries/Kegworth%20Aircrash.pdf

Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing
Aviation Safety, Security and Emergency Planning
Assignment Brief
Module Title
Aviation Safety, Security and
Emergency Planning
Indiv/Group:
Individual
Coursework
Cohort:
September
Coursework Title
Report and Case Study
Lecturer
Neil Wilson
Estimated Time (hrs): 35
Word Limit*: 3000
(see note 6 below on word limit penalties)
Coursework type:
Individual Report
Module Code:
Hand out date:
Tuesday 19 January 2021
Due date and time:
Aula:
FRIDAY 02 APRIL 21 / 18:00
% of Module Mark
100
Submission arrangement: online via Aula (maximum file size is 20Mb)
File types and method of recording: Word or pdf document
Mark and Feedback date: Monday 19 April 2021
Mark and Feedback method: electronic and individual audio recording via Turnitin in Aula; additional
verbal feedback will also be available via Zoom (by appointment)
Module Learning Outcomes Assessed:
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the regulatory framework underpinning safety and security
operations in the aviation industry
2. Critically assess the human aspects of devices and procedures required to achieve safety in the
air and on the ground
3. Evaluate the use of a variety of rules and technology in the pursuit of aviation security
4. Demonstrate an understanding of the principles of Emergency Planning Procedures
Task and Mark distribution:
A. Compare and contrast two different aviation disasters, the lessons learnt from the disasters
and the impact they had on the aviation business. One of your disasters will be the Tenerife
disaster which occurred on 27 March 1977 (classified as a safety disaster), and the other will be
a security disaster of your choice.
In your report, you can use any appropriate academic resources when discussing the security
disaster; however, when discussing the Tenerife disaster, you must refer to two academic
journals, in addition to other appropriate academic sources:
Weick, K. (1990) ‘The vulnerable system: an analysis of the Tenerife Air Disaster’. Journal of
Management 16 (3), 571-593
McCreary, J., Pollard, M., Stevenson, K., and Wilson, M. (1998) ‘Human Factors: Tenerife
Revisited’. Journal of Air Transportation World Wide 3 (1), 23-31
Suggested Word Count: ±2000 words
You should firstly choose a security disaster to analyse, as per the classification model delivered
in class. You should briefly describe the two disasters (the Tenerife disaster plus a security
disaster), and then discuss the operational, managerial, and regulatory aspects of the
incidences, the lessons learned and any changes that were introduced as a result of the
disasters. Using original and insightful reflection, look for connections and common themes in
the explanations for each of your chosen disasters.
B. Using Alexander’s Disaster Cycle (2002) as a framework, critically evaluate the emergency
response to the Kegworth accident on 8 January 1989 which was the last major aviation
disaster in the UK. You should analyse the response to the disaster in the context of the four
main segments of the Cycle: Mitigation, Preparation, Response and Recovery.
Suggested Word Count: ±1000 words
You must write a case study which critically evaluates the performance of all key stakeholders
when responding to the Kegworth accident. Be mindful that actions before the event
(Mitigation and Preparation) affected actions after the event (Response and Recovery). You will
need to engage with a range of literature to formulate your critical evaluation, including the
official report into the accident, academic journals and media reports. You may also wish to
include within the critical evaluation reference to existing disaster management strategies,
found in the Manchester Airport Emergency Orders and the bmi Emergency Response
Procedures Manual.
Having completed the evaluation of the emergency response with the Disaster Cycle providing a
framework, it may be appropriate to then briefly assess the value of Alexander’s model.
Notes:
1. You are expected to use either APA OR CU Harvard style for referencing. For support and advice
on this students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW).
2. Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.
3. Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outline
4. The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops
or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to
save it on the University system.
5. If there are technical or performance issues that prevent submitting coursework through the
online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an appropriate
extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will normally be
24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the weekend period.
This will be communicated via your Module Leader.
6. *Assignments that are more than 10% over the word limit will result in a deduction of 10% of
the mark i.e. a mark of 60% will lead to a reduction of 6% to 54%. The word limit includes
quotations, but excludes the bibliography, reference list and tables.
7. You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on Aula.
8. Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by
other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be
reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to both courseworks and exam answers.
9. A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class
discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in
you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your
own work.
10. If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original
version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts. Also, please read the
university Proof Reading Policy.
11. You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full),
either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, with the exception of
resits, where for the coursework, you maybe asked to rework and improve a previous attempt.
This requirement will be specifically detailed in your assignment brief or specific course or module
information. Where earlier work by you is citable, i.e. it has already been published/submitted,
you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently may also be
considered to be self-plagiarism.
Mark allocation guidelines to students
0-39
Work mainly
incomplete
and /or
weaknesses in
most areas
40-49
Most elements
completed;
weaknesses
outweigh
strengths
50-59
Most elements
are strong,
minor
weaknesses
60-69
Strengths in all
elements
70+
Most work
exceeds the
standard
expected
Marking Rubric
GRADE
Distinction
≥70
Merit
60-69
Upper Pass
50-59
Lower Pass
40-49
ANSWER RELEVANCE, KNOWLEDGE
AND UNDERSTANDING
35
• Innovative response, answers the
questions fully
• Fully addresses the learning objectives
of the assessment task
• Evidence of critical analysis, synthesis,
evaluation, and insightful reflection
• Extensive range of key issues identified
DISCUSSION, JUDGEMENT,
ARGUMENT & COHERENCE
30
Well-informed, original and engaging
discussion from a range of sources
A clear, consistent in-depth critical and
evaluative argument
Clear line of argument to support
conclusions
Wide-ranging and convincing
engagement with theoretical and
conceptual analysis.
EVIDENCE, INVESTIGATION AND
REFERENCING
15
• Excellent and original range of
appropriate supporting evidence
provided
• Material used goes beyond the
recommended texts
• Consistently and accurately referenced
with no errors.
• A very good attempt to address the
learning objectives of the assignment
• An emphasis on those elements
requiring critical review
• Appropriate personal/professional
reflections
• Broad range of key issues identified.
• Informed and original discussion
• The argument is well-reasoned,
considered and challenging
• A generally clear line of critical and
evaluative argument
• The answer demonstrates a very good
understanding of theories, concepts
and issues.
• A good range, depth and complexity of
relevant sources is used in a largely
consistent way as supporting evidence
• There is use of some sources beyond
recommended texts
• Correctly referenced in the main with
minimal deficiencies.
• Minimal spelling, punctuation and
grammatical errors
• Logical organisation and well-structured
• Coherent; clearly expressed using
professional language
• Good use of diagrams, charts, graphs,
tables etc. to aid analysis, discussion
and argument.
• Competently addresses objectives but
may contain errors or omissions
• Critical discussion of issues may be
superficial or limited in places
• Reflection evident – but lacks depth
• Key issues identified.
• Some discussion
• The argument – whilst structured – is
not always convincing
• The work is too descriptive in places
and there is an over-reliance on the
work of others
• The answer demonstrates a good
understanding of some relevant
theories, concepts and issues.
• A good range of relevant sources is
used, but the critical evaluation aspect
is not fully presented
• There is limited use of sources beyond
the standard recommended materials
• Referencing is not always correctly
presented.
• Some spelling, punctuation and
grammatical errors
• Organisation evident but the structure
lacks clarity
• Generally coherent but with some
noticeable lapses in expression
• Some use of diagrams, charts, graphs,
tables etc. to aid analysis, discussion
and argument
• Addresses most objectives of the
assignment, but with some notable
omissions
• There is very limited critical analysis
• Very little reflection evident
• The work is mainly descriptive with
minimal discussion
• The argument is limited/developing
• There is a weak structure to the
argument which lacks coherence
• A limited range of relevant sources
used
• Material not presented as supporting or
conflicting evidence
• Many spelling, punctuation and
grammatical errors
• Inadequate attention to organisation
and structure
• Vague and over-simplistic expression
•
•
•
•
STRUCTURE, STYLE AND CLARITY
20
• No spelling, punctuation and
grammatical errors
• Excellent organisation and structure
• Expression concise, accurate and wellarticulated
• Outstanding use of diagrams, charts,
graphs, tables etc. to aid analysis,
discussion and argument.
Fail

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!