Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:26:32.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability, safety and civil aviation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

N. R. S. Tait
N. R. S. Tait*
Affiliation:
Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Reliability and safety criteria have, in one form or another, made a significant contribution to engineering design since the earliest times. They gained added significance in Victorian times as the scale of civil and mechanical engineering projects increased. Codes of practice came into use, based both on practical experience and theoretical knowledge. Redundancy and diversity, though not given those names, were introduced as a means of achieving improved reliability and safety. Reliability and safety technology in the modern sense only developed, however, when predictive techniques, based on statistical information, were introduced. This technology has now taken its place in a wide range of engineering activities and is adopting an increasingly international role. It makes use of numerical reliability and safety goals and pays attention to problems associated with human reliability and ergonomics. This paper reviews the particularly important contribution made by civil aviation to the development of present day reliability and safety technology.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 98 , Issue 975 , May 1994 , pp. 185 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1994 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Howard, H.B. Certificates of airworthiness, Aeronaut J, 1930, 34, pp 361–383.Google Scholar
2. Airworthiness Handbook for Civil Aircraft AP 1208, UK Air Ministry, 1926.Google Scholar
3. Tye, W. Civil airworthiness, Aeronaut J, 1966, 70, pp 253–257.Google Scholar
4. Lundberg, B.K.O. Speed and Safety in Civil Aviation, Part 2, Safety, Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden, Report 95, 1963.Google Scholar
5. Murphy, T. Risk Assessment in Civil Air Transport, Proceedings of the International Conference on Risk Assessment, London, 5-9 October 1992, pp 353–363.Google Scholar
6. Bagnall Wild, R.K. Safety in flight, Aeronaut J, 1920, 24, pp 418–439.Google Scholar
7. Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Memorandum by the Committee relative to the Calculation of the Stress in an Aeroplane Wing. Reports and Memoranda, Number 97, January 1914.Google Scholar
8. Pamphlet, London-Paris Service — Safety and Economy Committee Report, Royal Aeronautical Society, 1921.Google Scholar
9. British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, UK Air Registration Board, London.Google Scholar
10. Hardingham, R.E. Maintaining airworthiness in operation, Aeronaut J, 1952, 56, pp 819–840.Google Scholar
11. Shaw, W.N. Report on Details of Wind Structure, Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Reports and Memoranda, Number 9, Part I, June 1909.Google Scholar
12. Dines, J.S. A Self Recording Counter and Dynamometer to Register on the Same Chart the Length of Wire Attached to a Kite and its Tension, Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Reports and Memoranda, Number 36, March 1911.Google Scholar
13. 'Notes’ in Aeronaut J, 1910, 14, pp 157–158.Google Scholar
14. Lamplugh, A.G. Accidents in civil aviation, Aeronaut J, 1932, 36, pp 93–110.Google Scholar
15. Griffith, A.A. and Wigley, C. A Preliminary Investigation of Certain Elastic Properties of Wood, Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Reports and Memoranda, Number 528, February 1918.Google Scholar
16. Searle, G.F.C. and Cullimore, W. Report on the Measurement of Accelerations on Aeroplanes in Flight, Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Reports and Memoranda, Number 469, June 1918.Google Scholar
17. Coombes, L.P. and Crouch, A.S. The Accelerations of a Fairey Flycatcher Seaplane during Aerobatic Manoeuvres, Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Reports and Memoranda, Number 1288, April 1929.Google Scholar
18. Finn, E. and Woodward Nutt, A.E. Accelerations of Aircraft During Manoeuvres, Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Reports and Memoranda, Number 1392, December 1930.Google Scholar
19. Pugsley, A.G. and Fairthorne, R.A. Note on Airworthiness Statistics, Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda, Number 2224, May 1939.Google Scholar
20. Pugsley, A.G. Structural Research in Aeronautics, Aircraft Engineering, June 1939, pp 225–227.Google Scholar
21. Pugsley, A.G. A Philosophy of Aeroplane Strength Factors, Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda, Number 1906, September 1942.Google Scholar
22. Freudenthal, A.M. The safety of structures, Trans Am Soc Civil Engrs, 1947, 112, pp 125–159.Google Scholar
23. Freudenthal, A.M. Safety and the probability of structural failure, Proc Am. Soc Civil Engrs, 1954, 80, (468), pp 1–46.Google Scholar
24. Cowley, W.L. Safety and multi-engined machines, Aircraft Engineering, December 1930, pp 229–304.Google Scholar
25. Final Report of the Standing Committee on Performance, Document 7401-AIR/OPS/612, International Civil Aviation Organisation, Montreal, Canada, Augustl953.Google Scholar
26. Charnley, J. Navigation aids to aircraft all-weather landing, J Navigation, 1989, 42, pp 161–185.Google Scholar
27. Wilkinson, K.G. Automatic landing in BEA's Trident operations — a review of effort and achievement, Aeronaut J, 1970, 74, pp 187–196.Google Scholar
28. Barlow, D. All-weather Landing — A $100-Million Problem, Control Engineering, July 1963.Google Scholar
29. Airworthiness Requirements for Auto-flare and Automatic Landing, Air Registration Board, Paper 367, Issue 1, November 1961.Google Scholar
30. Supersonic Transport, Airworthiness Objectives and System Analysis, Part 1 — General and Definitions, TSS Standard NO. 1-1, Issue l, July 1969.Google Scholar
31. Mearns, A.B. Fault Tree Analysis: the Study of Unlikely Events in Complex Systems. System Safety Symposium, Seattle, Washington, 1965.Google Scholar
32. Haasl, D.F. Advanced Concepts in Fault Tree Analysis. System Safety Symposium, Seattle, Washington, 1965.Google Scholar
33. Proposed Method for Assessment of Airworthiness of Systems, Air Registration Board, London, Paper 484, Issue 1, January 1969.Google Scholar
34. British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, Section D, Aeroplanes, Issue 10, Air Registration Board, London, November 1971.Google Scholar
35. Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR-25, US Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
36. Joint Airworthiness Requirements, JAR-25, Change 3, Published on behalf of the Joint Aviation Authorities by the UK Civil Aviation Authority, London, December 1976.Google Scholar
37. Schultz, M.A. Reactor safety instrumentation, Nucl Safety, 1962, 4, pp 1–13.Google Scholar
38. Garrick, B.J., Gekler, W.C., Goldfisher, L., Karcher, R.H., Shimizu, B. and Wilson, J.H., Reliability Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Protective Systems. Report to the USAEC, Washington DC, USA, May 1967.Google Scholar
39. Green, A.E. and Bourne, A.J. Safety Assessment with Reference to Automatic Protection Systems for Nuclear Reactors, Report AHSB(S) R117, UKAEA, Risley, Warrington, UK, 1966.Google Scholar
40. Farmer, F.R. Siting criteria — a new approach, J Brit Nucl Energy Soc, 1967, 6, pp 211-29.Google Scholar
41. Okrent, D. The Safety Goals of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Science, 1987, 236, pp 296–300.Google Scholar
42. Debenham, A.A. Development of Probabilistic Safety Criteria / Principles, in Nuclear Safety after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, Ballard, G.M. (ed), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar
43. Wu, J.S. and Apostolakis, G.E. Experience with probabilistic risk assessment in the nuclear power industry, J Hazardous Materials, 1992, 29, pp 313–45.Google Scholar
44. Hensley, G. Safety assessment — a method for determining the performance of alarm and shutdown systems for chemical plants, lnstrum Control, 1968, 1, pp T72–T79.Google Scholar
45. Stewart, R.M. High integrity protective systems, Inst Chem Eng Symp Series, No 34, 1971, pp 99–104.Google Scholar
46. Kletz, T.A. Hazard analysis — a quantitative approach to safety, Inst Chem Eng Symp Series, No 34, 1971, pp 75–81.Google Scholar
47. Public Enquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster, HMSO, London, 1990.Google Scholar
48. Health and Safety Executive, Canvey: an Investigation of Potential Hazards from Operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock Area, HMSO, London, 1978.Google Scholar
49. EC, Directive on the Introduction of Measures to Encourage Improvements in the Safety and Health of Workers at Work, Directive 89/39 I/EEC.Google Scholar