Abstract
Many safety management processes are conducted using vulnerability measures. It was assumed that such a measure would also be applicable to aviation operational stages, providing an innovative approach to their assessment. However, the research problem generated the necessity of adopting a new definition and mathematical model of vulnerability measure. An analysis of the literature indicated that vulnerability is most commonly a probabilistic measure based on conditional probability, and it can be obtained from information on recorded aviation incidents. The specificity of the analysis area showed that an additional component of vulnerability concerning the diversity of incident causes would need to be considered. This component affects both the severity and frequency of incidents but can also be problematic, for example, in the context of organizing safety systems. Therefore, the aim of this article was to develop and present a mathematical model of the new vulnerability measure for aviation operational stages to adverse incidents in civil aviation systems and to present the results of its estimations. The new model of vulnerability measure presented in this article captures the component related to the diversity of incident causes in the form of an original diversity coefficient based on species diversity measures. The presented measure is not intended to replace the ones currently used but to complement the resources of available safety management tools. The mathematical vulnerability model was prepared to be easily modified if necessary (by adopting other functions), but based on two variables reflecting vulnerability. The results of estimating the vulnerability of selected aviation operational stages according to the developed vulnerability measure show that it is possible to assess these stages in terms of vulnerability to various classes of aviation incidents. The obtained results suggest the potential applicability of this measure to other research problems.
References
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Corbin, J. C., & Cooley, W. W. (1982). Assessment of aircraft susceptibility/vulnerability to lightning and development of lightning-protection design criteria. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, EMC-24(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.1982.304033
Dacko, A., & Toczyski, J. (2011). Vulnerability Analysis of Aircraft Fuselage Subjected to Internal Explosion. Archive of Mechanical Engineering, 58(4), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10180-011-0024-4
Dhillon, B. S. (1999). DESIGN RELIABILITY Fundamentals and Applications. CRC Press Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
EASA. (2019). NPA 2019-05 Embodiment of safety management system (SMS) requirements into Part-145 and Part 21. EASA.
Fouda, R. M. (2018). Security vulnerabilities of cyberphysical unmanned aircraft systems. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 33(9), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAES.2018.170021
Gill, A. (2018). Warstwowe modele systemów bezpieczeństwa do zastosowań w transporcie szynowym [Layered models of safety systems for rail transport applications]. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej.
Gill, A., & Smoczyński, P. (2018). Layered model for convenient designing of safety system upgrades in railways. Safety Science, 110PB, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.024
ICAO. (2004). Aviation Occurrence Categories Definitions and Usage Notes. ICAO.
ICAO. (2010). ECCAIRS 4.2.8 - Occurrence classes. ICAO.
ICAO. (2016). Annex 19 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Safety Management (2nd ed.).
ICAO. (2017). Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation (2nd ed.).
ICAO. (1987) Doc. 9156. Accident/incident reporting manual.
ICAO. (2018). Doc. 9859. Safety Management Manual (4th ed.). ICAO.
Kaewunruen, S., Sresakoolchai, J., Ma, W., & Phil-Ebosie, O. (2021). Digital Twin Aided Vulnerability Assessment and Risk-Based Maintenance Planning of Bridge Infrastructures Exposed to Extreme Conditions. In Sustainability (Vol. 13, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042051
Kobaszyńska-Twardowska, A., Krzyżanowski, M., & Siwka, P. (2023). Forecasting Trends of Safety Performance Indicators in Aviation. Safety & Defense, 9(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37105/sd.201
Konokman, H. E., Kayran, A., & Kaya, M. (2017). Aircraft vulnerability assessment against fragmentation warhead. Aerospace Science and Technology, 67, 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.04.005
Li, J., Yang, W., Zhang, Y., Pei, Y., Ren, Y., & Wang, W. (2013). Aircraft vulnerability modeling and computation methods based on product structure and CATIA. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 26(2), 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2013.02.010
Lomazzi, L., Cadini, F., Giglio, M., & Manes, A. (2022). Vulnerability assessment to projectiles: Approach definition and application to helicopter platforms. Defence Technology, 18(9), 1523–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2021.09.001
Lovric, M. (Ed.). (2011). International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (1st ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Maragakis, I., Clark, S., Piers, M., Prior, C. D., Tripaldi, C., Masson, M., & Audart, C. (2009). Guidance on hazadrs identification, European Strategic Safety Initiative. European Authority for aviation safety (EASA).
Nöldgen, M., Fehling, E., Riedel, W., & Thoma, K. (2012). Vulnerability and Robustness of a Security Skyscraper Subjected to Aircraft Impact. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 27(5), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2011.00748.x
Pei, Y., & Cheng, T. (2014). Importance Measure Method for Ranking the Aircraft Component Vulnerability. Journal of Aircraft, 51(1), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C032334
Pei, Y., Li, P., & Song, B. (2012). Kronecker Product Method for the Exact Solution of Aircraft Vulnerability. Journal of Aircraft, 49(1), 337–341. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031476
Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) NR 996/2010 z dnia 20 października 2010 r. w sprawie badania wypadków i incydentów w lotnictwie cywilnym oraz zapo-biegania im. (2010).
Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of Diversity. Nature, 163, 688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
Singh, V. P., & Singh, Y. (2000). zGeneralized Model for Aircraft Vulnerability by Different Weapon Systems. Defence Science Journal, 50(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.14429/dsj.50.3316
Skorupski, J. (2018). Ilościowe metody analizy incydentów w ruchu lotniczym. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej.
SRA. (2018). Society for Risk Analysis Glossary. Society for Risk Analysis (SRA). https://www.sra.org/
Sun, Y., Wu, T. Y., Liu, X. W., & Obaidat, M. S. (2016). Multilayered Impact Evaluation Model for Attacking Missions. Ieee Systems Journal, 10(4), 1304–1315. https://doi.org/10.1109/jsyst.2014.2344048
Thekdi, S., & Aven, T. (2024). Characterization of biases and their impact on the integrity of a risk study. Safety Science, 170(May 2023), 106376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106376
ULC (CAA) m unpublished materials
Ustawa z dnia 3 lipca 2002 r. Prawo lotnicze (Dz.U. z 2008 r. Nr 97, poz. 625), (2002).The Act of July 3, 2002, Aviation Law.
Willis, H. H. (2007). Guiding Resource Allocations Based on Terrorism Risk. Risk Analysis, 27(3), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00909.x
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.