Based on the analysis of the events that led to the occurrence of the accident, it can be deduced that there are many alternative courses of action that could have been taken to prevent its occurrence. The early descriptions of the pilot’s preparations demonstrated that he was reckless. Moreover, the circumstances leading to the preparation of the journey were compromised by two major factors. Firstly, the pilot was in an intimate relationship with the nurse, who was the only passenger on the plane. Secondly, the pilot was in a hurry on the day of the incident, as evidenced by the fact that he arrived late at the airport. Worse still, his thoughts must his decision making must have also been influenced by the sight of the crying nursing who was anxious to see her dying mother. All these circumstances indicate that the accident was somehow a self-destructive mission despite that it was not directly intentional like one would describe a suicide mission. This report analyses areas of failure and alternative courses of action that could have broken the accident chain.
Areas of Failure
Despite the personal issues that confronted the pilot and the nurse, the preparations for the flight were conducted in a hurry. The pilot had checked the weather and filed an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight with F.A.A the night before the catastrophic day. He was fully aware of the bad weather but chose to go ahead with the flight the next day. As much as the pilot had checked with IFR, there was the need for personal discretion as well as advising the nurse on the risks that they would take. There was also the need to check for Visual Flight Rules (VFR) since the case report suggests that there were issues with visuals due to the lousy weather ( F.A.A., 2019) . This way, the pilot would have obtained Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). These conditions cannot be considered safe to trust when operating an aircraft. Still, they would have complemented the Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) that are obtained as a result of checking with IFR. However, having such knowledge would have improved safety.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A witness indicated that the preflight was conducted in a hurry implying that the accuracy of the pilot could have been compromised. A preflight is important since it allows the pilot to make the final decision on whether to continue with the flight or cancel it. However, the pilot was late and did not have enough time for preflight. Moreover, he might have been rushed into takeoff due to the sight of the distressed nurse. Again, this a major failure of the pilot not to consider the safety issues that can be compromised by such decisions.
After takeoff, it was indicated that the pilot reported a failure after climbing 13,000 feet. Worse still, he was not specific when reporting the failure. This demonstrates poor communication strategies between the pilot and the ATC controller. To ensure safety, there is a need for effective communication between the ATC control system and the pilot. This way, an emergency that is reported in time and the right manner can be attended to and thus enhance safety ( Li, 2011) . The failure was later discovered to be a vacuum power failure. The failure was as a result of poor flight preplanning. Aviation researchers indicate that vacuum power failure is rare, but it should be expected after every 500 hours ( F.A.A., 2017, a) . From that perspective, it can be concluded that the aircraft had not been pre-checked and serviced. From the analysis of the communication between the pilot and the ATC, it was deduced that the pilot might have known that he did not have a backup instrument in the event of vacuum failure. However, he took the risk of flying without such mandatory backup that resulted in the accident. On the other hand, the ATC controller advised him to turn wrongly, leading to the aircraft crash.
Alternative Courses of Action that could have broken the Accident Chain
The pilot had some time to make the right decisions before the crash, but, the ATR controller might have misadvised him. While some emergencies such as engine failure require the pilot to make a quick decision and act immediately, there is a significant time for a pilot to analyze any changes that occur, collect vital information, and evaluate potential risks before making a decision ( F.A. A., 2017, b) . The procedures that lead to a decision constitute the decision-making process. The decision-making process involves considering risks that may result from taking action ( Li, 2011) . The method of evaluating risks involves risks assessment, analysis of the controls, settling on control decisions, and monitoring the results.
The alternative courses of actions that could have prevented or salvage the aircraft from crashing require Single-Pilot Resource Management (SRM). The whole purpose of SRM involves the process of gathering information, analyze the information, and make decisions. One of the practical applications of the SRM that could have proved important when preparing for the flight is the five Ps, which include the Plan, the Plane, the Pilot, the Passengers, and the Programming ( Li, 2011) . If led to the crash of the aircraft, the pilot did not apply the five Ps since there were many issues surrounding all the five elements. For example, the flight was not planned effectively as explained in the event. The plane was not in good condition before its take-off, and this can be attributed to the recklessness of the pilot. The passenger was also influencing the pilot, negatively blurring his objectivity in decision making. The pilot did not program his flight well because he did not ensure that all the other four elements' work is well-organized to reduce conflicts while in the air.
From a critical analysis of the accident, it is evident that it occurred due to poor planning. The most crucial aspect of SRM that influences other factors significantly is flight planning. The process of flight planning involved cyclical procedures that must be adhered to if the flight is to be successful ( F.A.A., 2019) . Most importantly, there is a need to consider risk management. The pilot would have avoided the incident by assessing risk accurately to determine whether it was safe to take off in the first place. The process of risk management involves identifying hazards, assessing them, analyzing possible control measures, making and using control decisions, and monitoring results ( F.A.A., 2017, a) . This should have been the case when the pilot realized that he did not have a backup instrument before taking off.
From the analysis of the event, it is evident that the accident occurred due to poor planning. Additionally, the accident can be attributed to poor communication strategies among different stakeholders, such as the pilot and the ATC controller. Similarly, it seems that the pilot did not communicate effectively with other stakeholders, such as those responsible for the repair and maintenance of the aircraft. There was also a lack of collective responsibility when making decisions as demonstrated the individuality that is evident in every decision taken before the crash of the plane. Most importantly, pilots, passengers, and other stakeholders need to make decisions based on objectivity, especially when involved in critical incidences such as air flights.
References
F.A.A. (2019) Aeronautical Decision-Making. Retrieved 2 March 2020, from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/04_phak_ch2.pdf
F.A.A. (2017, a). Risk Management Handbook (ASA FAA-H-8083-2 Change 1) . Aviation Supplies and Academics, Inc.
F.A. A. (2017, b). Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (Federal Aviation Administration) . New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
Li, W.-C. (September 01, 2011). The casual factors of aviation accidents related to decision errors in the cockpit by system approach. Journal of Aeronautics, Astronautics and Aviation, Series A, 43, 3, 159-166.
