Open Skies Agreements with the European Union

 

Tilak S. Ramaprakash is an aviation professional who has piloted and provided strategic advice on aviation operation management. Extensively researched in his field, Tilak Ramaprakash is the author of “Open Skies Agreements with the European Union.” In the paper, he looks at agreements that enable partner countries to minimize government intervention in using EU airspace and facilities while providing maximum access.

Such agreements pose serious trade law issues, with critics arguing that the EU often provides more, through unlimited access, than reciprocating countries do, with their “comparatively limited markets.” Despite this, EU Open Skies agreements have been integral in achieving commercial aims, including boosting traffic flow, increasing global economic activity, and controlling airfares.

One major issue that needs to be resolved is the Open Skies agreement with the US, which provides US carriers with free access to the EU while not achieving a fair level of reciprocating access. The author suggests that the US-Canada Open Skies agreement could be a viable model moving forward in negotiating a new agreement that would be more equitable.

How Threat and Error Management Functions on the Runway

 Active with the Professional Aviation Maintenance Association, Tilak S. Ramaprakash has a background as a contract pilot and aviation auditor. As a member of Purdue University’s Aviation Technology Department, Tilak Ramaprakash authored the paper “Threat and Error Management (TEM) and Runway Excursions.”

A human performance-related safety concept, TEM originated in the procedures followed on airline flight decks. It is now used more broadly in discussing a variety of dynamic operating environments across the aviation realm.

At its foundation, TEM involves maximizing safety margins through anticipation, recognition, and recovery. The anticipation aspect consists of the flight crew staying vigilant and avoiding a sense of complacency. Recognition involves identifying unusual patterns the moment they occur, which is essential to mitigating an error or threat. Finally, recovery requires regaining an acceptable state of safety given a situation where the aircraft is in trouble. It represents a final opportunity to avoid an undesired outcome, such as a crash landing.

The factors involved in such situations on the runway are manifold and include bad weather, airport birds, terrain, ground crews, and air traffic control. In addition, many issues involving personnel can contribute, from experience level to excessive workload and resulting fatigue and stress. Maintaining a TEM protocol can help ensure that factors leading to unwanted incidents are proactively identified and prevented.

Factors that Determine Airline Quality

A Professional Aviation Maintenance association member, Tilak Ramaprakash earned his bachelor and master of science in aviation management and aviation and aerospace management, respectively, from Purdue University. An accredited aviation auditor, Tilak S. Ramaprakash's interest in aviation permeates different facets, including airplane quality reviews and measurement parameters.

Punctuality forms one criterion for measuring airline quality. Unlike other modes of transport such as the road, where you can catch the next bus or taxi, flight delays are costly and significantly disrupt schedules, especially for connecting flights or essential engagements. Constant delays, especially departures, which passengers seem to remember more than delayed arrivals, deter future bookings.

Luggage handling is the second parameter when evaluating airline quality. Passengers never forget lost, mishandled, or tampered with luggage, especially for sentimental or costly items. The experience forms the first response when someone asks for a referral, and since nobody wants to lose luggage, they tend to keep away.

The third criterion is customer service, both from ground and flight crews. While different demographics and cultures harbor different expectations, basic best practices in customer service exist.

From the three parameters, Mr. Ramaprakash believes customer service deserves the highest weight as it determines how the other issues are addressed. For example, for inevitable delays, proactive communication on time and engaging the passengers on alternatives such as re-routes and connecting flights help alleviate the distress levels.

Though other factors that determine quality exist, the three play a significant role in judging airline quality. Other variables, such as the age of the fleet, compliance, and seat tilt, are more back-end elements not immediately visible or do not affect the passenger directly.

Using Threat and Error Management Systems to Mitigate Aviation Risks

A master of science graduate in aviation and aerospace management from Purdue University, Tilak S. Ramaprakash works as a contract pilot, aviation auditor, and consultant. He leverages his certifications as an auditor to ensure adherence to international aviation standards for different airlines. One of the areas Tilak Ramaprakash monitors and audits is threat-and-error management (TEM) in flight operations.

TEM utilizes a three-pronged model of threats, errors, and undesired aircraft states. From the airline crew’s perspective, situational management works on the premise that threats and errors represent a significant factor in everyday aviation, thus should be heavily weighted, as they can lead to undesired aircraft states.

In the aviation industry, some threats emanate from external factors beyond the crew’s control and range from extreme weather, complex terrain, such as proximity to mountains and water bodies, and errors by third parties, such as maintenance crews. Each of these variables significantly affects the safety and risk margins of the aircraft’s desired operation.

In some instances, the crew does anticipate threats, either from experience, data analysis, or feedback from other parties. Examples of anticipated threats include poor airport design, either for approach or takeoff, or congestion, which allow for prior planning. However, unexpected threats, such as a component malfunction without warning, require crew engagement through prior experience, training, and drills.

There are threats that fall into neither the anticipated nor the unexpected classification. These are referred to as latent threats, which require safety analysis to solve, and can include airplane design flaws. Regardless of the threat nature, an effective and tested TEM system enables the crew to respond effectively and deploy the necessary countermeasures in the shortest time possible to maintain the desirable aircraft state.