Ethical Issues in Aviation

Elizabeth A. Hoppe, Elizabeth A. Hoppe

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429791994
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

The aviation industry is unique in two major ways: firstly, it has a long history of government involvement dating back to the early days of aviation; and secondly, its primary concern is the safety of its passengers and crew. These features highlight the importance of ethical decision-making at all levels of the industry. However, well-publicized problems such as the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 highlight the need for ethics to take a more prominent role in the field.

Ethical Issues in Aviation focuses on both past and current topics in aviation, providing the reader with an overview of the major themes in aviation ethics that cover a broad range of subjects. Contributors include academics who do research in the field as well as professionals who provide first-hand accounts of the ethical situations that arise in the aviation industry. This second edition has been thoroughly revised throughout to bring it up to date, and features several new chapters that cover recent events and topics.

This book enhances student learning by providing faculty, students, and those interested in aviation with discussion of the most pressing ethical issues that continue to impact the industry.

PART I
Theoretical frameworks

In the aviation industry a variety of ethical theories are utilized even without one necessarily being aware of them. For example, the rules and regulations that the FAA creates are based on a cost–benefit approach to decision-making. Such an approach to regulation was first introduced in Executive Order 12866 of September 1993 and reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563 of January 2011. Each agency is directed to use present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible (White House 2011). While this type of analysis is economic rather than moral, the ethics of consequentialism parallels the same method for determining morally right and wrong actions.

Prior to examining the various ethical theories and dilemmas that arise in the aviation industry, this opening part of the text examines important theoretical frameworks, not only of ethics but also of capitalism. Some of the key concepts that arise in Part I can help provide a means for assessing the issues that arise throughout this text.

Chapter 1 by Mark H. Waymack investigates and critiques two forms of ethics that emphasize how we determine the choices we make: consequentialism and deontology, or duty-based reasoning. Both consequentialist and deontological ethics emphasize the importance of decision-making. Questions such as are consequences what matter in ethics or should morality be based on universal laws are important issues for the aviation industry. Waymack’s analysis reveals the fundamental aspects of consequentialism in order to assess some of its main strengths and weaknesses. He follows this with an account of Kantian deontology, the type of ethics that is concerned with adherence to universal moral laws rather than the consequences of an action.

In focusing on how to live an ethical life, in Chapter 2 Waymack reveals two other directions that ethics may take: rights-based reasoning and virtue ethics, a form of ethics which provides ways to develop a person’s character. The hope is that a virtuous person would make good decisions, and thus the focus should be on one’s character rather than one’s choices. Questions about rights include issues of whether or not rights are something natural or if they arise due to a contract made by people in society. Although Waymack points out that no ethical theory is perfect, he also argues against a skeptic who would assert that ethics is useless. Instead Waymack advocates for the value of studying ethics, and provides a seven-step reasoning process that utilizes the different ethical theories analyzed in Chapters 1 and 2.

The third and final chapter in this section investigates historical and con temporary assessments of capitalism in order for the reader to reflect on its strengths and limitations. As with any other industry, in their attempts to maximize profits airlines may cut corners. The point is to ask when the drive for profits crosses a line such that it becomes unethical. Nathan Ross first addresses historical proponents of capitalism—such as John Locke on property rights, David Hume’s defense of luxury, and Adam Smith on the division of labor—in order to develop the merits of the capitalist system. Ross follows this analysis with an account of some of the main critics of capitalism, most notably the nineteenth-century theorist Karl Marx and his critique of surplus labor value. Marx argues that workers are exploited by the capitalist system in that management does not pay workers according to the value of what they produce. Ross then ends the chapter with a discussion of contemporary European critics, most notably Walter Benjamin, Georges Bataille, and Jean Baudrillard. Some of the more troubling aspects of contemporary capitalism include overproduction and consumerism. Both of these problems relate to issues in the aviation industry today, such as the consumer’s inability to have a say in choices regarding ticketing, frequency of flights, routes, etc.

Reference

White House. 2011 (Jan 18). Executive Order 13563: improving regulation and regulatory review. Available at: www­.whi­tehouse.gov/t­he-press-off­ice/2011/01/­18/executiv­e-order-1356­3-improvin­g-regulati­on-and-regul­atory-revi­ew [accessed September 15, 2016].

1
ETHICAL THEORIES I

Dilemmas and decision-making

Mark H. Waymack

On February 12, 2009, Colgan Air (operating as Continental Connection) Flight 3407 crashed near its destination in Buffalo, NY, claiming all 50 lives on board. Since the accident occurred in wintry conditions, icing on the wings was a hypothesis that immediately came to many minds in explaining the main cause of the crash. However, as the investigation methodically proceeded, what emerged was the story of a response to an impending stall that went contrary to pilot training. According to the Executive Summary of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB’s) aircraft accident report:

The probable cause of this accident was the captain’s inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker [the stick shaker warns a pilot of an impending wing aerodynamic stall], which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were: (1) the flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the lowspeed cue, (2) the flight crew’s failure to adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the captain’s failure to effectively manage the flight, and (4) Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions. (NTSB 2010: x)

Actions (or inactions) on the part of the first officer exacerbated the seriousness of the captain’s incorrect actions, and succeeded only in accelerating the plane’s trajectory into a doomed, fatal stall.

Behind these tragic bad decisions in the final seconds of Flight 3407, however, was a series of choices and circumstances that led to this fatal accident. The NTSB notes that the captain had several FAA certificate disapprovals, both before and after his employment at Colgan Air, two of which he failed to admit on his Colgan Air application (NTSB 2010: 9–10). The NTSB also found that the air carrier’s approach-to-stall training program did not adequately prepare pilots for an unexpected stall or how to recover from it (NTSB 2010: 153). Furthermore, the low wages of the first officer made it impractical for her to live in the Newark, NJ area (her base); she in fact lived at her parents’ home near Seattle, WA.¹She had traveled from Seattle the day before, and then on the day of the accident spent part of the time sleeping on a couch in the crew room at the Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR). The captain also apparently spent some time sleeping on a couch in the crew room. Regarding the possibility of fatigue as a factor in this flight, the report states that “the pilots’ performance was likely impaired because of fatigue, but the extent of their impairment and the degree to which it contributed to the performance deficiencies that occurred during the flight cannot be conclusively determined” (NTSB 2010: 153). Although we cannot say to what extent fatigue directly led to the accident, we do know that it was not icing or mechanical failure that caused the fatal crash: it was pilot error. Also contributing to the flight deck errors were inadequate training, falsification or concealment of FAA certificate disapprovals, and sleep deprivation attributed, indirectly, to the first officer’s low salary.

Needless to say, the crash and its loss of life are deeply regrettable. Still, no means of transportation, ancient or modern, is entirely safe. We could just say, like an accident on the highway, bad things sometimes just happen. And that may be true in a sense. But when we step onto a commercial airplane, we, as passengers, are trusting in the good faith of the airline and in the qualifications of our flight crew. In this case it looks as though both the crew and the company failed our trust. In many ways, the things that happened “ought not” to have happened. In particular, the captain, the first officer, and Colgan Air (and its contractor Continental Airlines) all made choices and worked in ways that unnecessarily contributed to the accident. As there was a serious violation of trust, we shall argue that they all also acted unethically.

It is one thing, however, to have an intuition about ethics, or in other words a gut reaction; yet, as we all know too well, gut reactions can sometimes lead us astray. Indeed the gut reaction of the captain of Flight 3407 as the stick shaker activated was to apply a 37-pound pull force to the control column, a choice that caused the plane’s wing to stall (NTSB 2010: 82). It can also be quite another thing to clearly articulate and justify our moral judgments, actions, and conclusions. Yet without express deliberation and articulation, how can we, or others, be confident in our moral choices and be assured that we are not simply working with prejudiced or misguided moral judgments?

An overview of ethical theory

Moral decision-making can be a very difficult task; yet it is not a task that we can avoid. Our society has, in its own way, made this decision-making process even harder, for it is now composed of a number of different cultures that have disparate, and often conflicting, moral traditions. For example, Roman Catholicism strongly opposes abortion rights, whereas political liberalism, which emphasizes the rights of the individual, reserves abortion as the free choice of the pregnant woman. Not everyone can be morally right when there is such fundamental disagreement. But how can we determine who is choosing wisely and who is choosing poorly? How can we know whether we are choosing correctly or if we are acting out of unjustified and narrow-minded prejudice?

Suppose there were several people all arguing about how tall a certain tree is. A sensible tactic would certainly be to measure how tall it actually is. Now this requires two important steps. First, we must agree upon what the appropriate units of measure are. That is, against what standard are we going to calculate the tree’s size? And, second, we must go through some process of applying the standard to the tree; that is, doing the measuring. These two steps take the guessing out of the measurement and help ensure that everyone is most likely to agree on the correctness of the answer that we reach.

How can we translate this example to our difficulties in moral decision-making? If we can rationally agree on a standard of measurement and also agree on how to apply that standard to ethically difficult cases, then our difficulties should be largely dissolved. Unfortunately, the matter is not quite that simple. In the example of the tree, it was agreed by all that we were measuring the height of the tree. That is rather straightforward. Feet, yards, meters may be different possible units of measure, but they are all commensurable; that is, they can all be translated into the terms of each other. But with moral arguments one of the serious difficulties we face is that we may often disagree over what it is we think we ought to be measuring. It would be as though some people thought that what was important when measuring trees is their width, or the circumference of their trunks, or perhaps even the size of their leaves rather than their height.

There is, in fact, just this sort of disagreement in morality. Some people think that what ought to be measured are the consequences of an action. For example, would the action produce happiness, or would it cause pain or suffering? Other thinkers focus upon adherence to certain forms of law. Does the action conform to the law or principle that one should only do what one would want everyone else to do? Still other thinkers look to moral rights. Would a certain action promote or violate someone’s moral rights? And some thinkers regard virtue or good character as the proper focus of moral evaluation.

In this chapter we will study two different theories that provide standards for moral reasoning, ones that offer relatively clear decision procedures. Such ethical theories are attempts to articulate clearly what the standard of measurement should be, why it is the appropriate standard, and how that standard or reasoning process is to be applied in our moral decision-making. The theories we will discuss each utilize quite different features as the most important aspects to be measured; but we have chosen these because we think they each capture some important and plausible insights into what moral reasoning ought to be doing and how it ought to be judged. The two theories of ethical reasoning that we will discuss in this chapter are: (1) Consequentialist, or value-maximizing; and (2) Deontological, or duty-based reasoning.

Consequentialist ethics

Consequentialist reasoning

When we contemplate a case like that of Flight 3407, some of the first things that come to mind are the consequences of our possible choices. If the captain had been honest on his job application, either he would not have been hired or he might have received additional training. Thus, the accident might have been avoided. Furthermore, if the airline had more closely enforced training requirements and also paid a more reasonable salary, the crew would have been technically better prepared as well as not sleep deprived. Instead, the captain withheld information, more than likely in order to be a better job candidate; both pilots chose to fly even when they probably did not have an adequate amount of sleep; and the airline chose to save money by requiring less training and paying wages that are hardly above the poverty line.²

The consequentialist begins with the assumption that humans, as agents, are goal directed. We are creatures who, in our actions, make choices that aim at certain goals in order to produce certain results. Furthermore, we judge the correctness of these actions according to how effectively they produce the intended consequences. For example, we judge investment bankers according to their success at making large profits. We evaluate an automobile manufacturer by the product of its labor—does the car run smoothly, efficiently, and safely? And we critique chefs by the level of pleasure we receive from the meals they prepare. According to the consequentialist, moral judgments are in principle made no differently. We judge human actions to be morally right or wrong, morally good or bad, according to the consequences that those actions produce.

Our account of consequential ethics has thus far been somewhat vague. To say that the consequences are what matters does not tell us much. Two questions need to be brought forward: (1) consequences may be the essence of moral reasoning, but consequences for whom?; and (2) specifically what sort of consequences should we attempt to achieve? What makes a good consequence good and a bad consequence bad?

Consequences for whom?

Any action we perform is likely to have consequences for, or upon, many different people. In cases that involve the question of whether or not to follow proper procedures in aircraft maintenance, there will be consequences to the maintenance technician, the supervisor, and even the airline. Depending on the situation, the risk of significant harm to passengers and crew may greatly increase.³ Different moral theories, though, have given different answers to the question of who counts as morally important.

Consequences for the self: ethical egoism

One possible answer is that the consequences to me are what matter. This ethics of self-interest is also known as “ethical egoism.” What is morally right is the action that has beneficial consequences for me. This is an unsatisfactory answer for a number of reasons. What are we to say of other persons? If we take this type of ethics to mean that “everyone should do those and only those actions that are in their own self-interest,” then what do we say to the other person when his or her interest conflicts with our own? Am I to maintain that you are morally wrong to pursue your self-interest when what you seek to do will harm my self-interest? Does it make sense to state that the same action would be morally right and morally wrong at the same time? If we try to apply this standard of right and wrong to Flight 3407, we can easily see just how confused and useless it is. Should the pilots simply pursue their own self-interests? Th...