Auxiliary Aircraft Systems Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Auxiliary Aircraft Systems - Article Example Every fuel tank has to withstand vibrations, fluid, structural, and, inertia loads without failure. In addition, fuel systems have to be free from vapor lock that occurs when fuel is used at its critical temperature. The danger of fuel starvation, fire, or explosion in flight makes it compulsory for fuel system irregularities check top priority. An aircraft fuel system has to deliver and store clean fuel at flow rate and pressure that sustains operations. Therefore, any evidence of leak or malfunction has to be rectified before departure. Personnel maintaining fuel or handling fuel systems should be trained on best practices that reduce incidents or accidents. Conditions of fuel trucks and storage tanks should be monitored to avoid contamination. Filter treatments and changes are to be carried regularly. Samples from all drains must be inspected regularly. Fueling and defueling of an aircraft should be done outside to avoid fuel vapors that might accumulate in hangar and cause an accident; these processes require fire extinguishers. Personnel should wear clothing that does not promote static electricity buildup. Correct fuel should be put in the aircraft by the placing placards at the filling port or at the fueling station. Nozzles are required to be clean every time to avoid contamination of the fuel. When defueling, if a tank is drained due to fuel contamination or suspected contamination, then it should not be mixed with other

New labour’s rights policies on inclusive education and rights Essay Example for Free

New labour’s rights policies on inclusive education and rights Essay To realize advantages and shortcomings of inclusive education in practice we have to consider as well whether childrens rights are observed within the context of inclusion as well as to analyse the main provisions of legislative instruments and governmental documents regarding this sphere. This will give us a better insight of what forces act in the process of transition to inclusive education intensively promoted by New Labour government and what effect they have upon children-recipients. Internationally, the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child has established a near global consensus concerning the minimum necessary rights for children: rights to provision, protection and participation the 3 Ps (Pugh 2005, p. 4). The UK does not stand apart in international processes of providing all children, including the most vulnerable children wit SEN, with the opportunity to exercise these rights. Many observers admit that the election and re-election of more children friendly New Labour governments in 1997 and 2001 resulted in significant political development for childrens rights, as an extensive range of new policies and laws affecting the lives of children both directly and indirectly have been promulgated (Foley et al. 2003, p. 38). They include Health Action Zones, The Childrens Taskforce, The Childrens National Service Framework, The National Childcare Strategy, Early Years and Development and Child Care Partnerships, Quality Protects, Removing Barriers to Achievement, Sure Start, Every Child Matters etc. (Pugh 2005, p. 1). Besides, a very important document was adopted in 2001 – a new statutory guidance from New Labour Government Inclusive Schooling: Children with Special Educational Needs (DfES 2001) which sets out the main principles of inclusive education: with the right training, strategies and support nearly all children with special educational needs can be successfully included in mainstream education; an inclusive education service offers excellence and choice and incorporates the views of parents and children; the interests of children must be safeguarded; schools, local education authorities and others should actively seek to remove barriers to learning and participation; all children should have access to an appropriate education that affords them the opportunity to achieve their personal potential; mainstream education will not always be right for every child all of the time. Equally, just because mainstream education may not be right at a particular stage it does not prevent the child from being included successfully at a later stage. This document stipulates that schools and local education authorities ability to refuse a mainstream place for a child with special educational needs is severely restricted. They are able to refuse a mainstream school place to a child if it would be incompatible with the efficient education of others; however, reasonable steps must be taken to prevent that incompatibility (DfES 2001). The Green Paper Every Child Matters further illustrates New Labours commitment to reform services delivered to children, especially those with SEN, with the purpose to provide all of them with the opportunity to be healthy, to stay safe, to have high academic attainments, to participate in life of community, enjoy and develop, and to achieve financial well-being. The focus of this document is on early intervention, removing the barriers to learning – both physical and social, preventative work and integrated services for children (DFES 2003). The latter provision reasonably stresses importance of transagency collaboration and coordination to achieve better quality of services delivered to children in need. The use of collaborative teaming among professionals, agencies, the child, and family members, the use of the curriculum that focuses on the interactions between the pupil and his/her environments as well as the establishment and use of interagency linkages to facilitate the smooth integration of the child in mainstream school are the most important components of this cooperation (Cheminais 2006, p.19). A crucial motif in such policies is the idea of equal worth and recognition for people deemed to be disadvantaged, marginalised and excluded. Notions of children locked in cycles of personal and social deprivation, excluded, but also self-excluding, emotionally damaged and lacking confidence and skills permeate these initiatives (Rieser 2000, p. 148). These legal instruments, in actual fact, established broad social investment programmes focusing on attaining such major outcomes for all children, including those with SEN, as to assure them to be healthy, to live in safe environment, to improve their academic achievements, to participate in full measure in social life, enjoy and develop, and to attain financial well-being (DFES 2003). The government has raised family incomes by introducing a national minimum wage and through policies such as the working families tax credit (Pugh 2005, p.8). The establishment of a Cabinet Committee on Children and Young Peoples Services, and a Children and Young Peoples Unit in the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), with a remit to develop a cross-departmental approach to policy as well as administering the Children Fund with ? 450 million to help to alleviate child poverty and social exclusion (DfES 2003), offer further testament to government commitments to children. The introduction of the National Childcare Strategy and Quality Protects with its strong recommendation that local authorities appoint a Childrens Rights Officer for looked after children, combined with the establishment of the Social Exclusion Unit and a number of community initiatives such as Sure Start designed to help preschool children, have increased assistance to children and their families, especially in severely disadvantaged areas (Pugh 2005). But any review of the Labour governments record must include brickbats alongside bouquets. New Labour has reduced the number of children in poverty in recent years but the figures remain substantial for a country which ranks among the seven most industrialised nations in the world (Corbett 2001, p. 67). Young people under the age of 22, moreover, are exempted from the adult minimum wage of ? 4. 10 (Rieser 2000, p. 154). The centralisation of education, the imposition of national curricula and league tables and the privatising of certain aspects of education, are unlikely to promote childrens participation rights or provide them with a voice in the running of their inclusive schools. Perhaps most significantly, New Labours election has regressed into a populist and authoritarian series of measures, such as curfews and electronic tagging. The Home Office, moreover, encouraged public perceptions of young people as unruly, out of control and requiring policies which stress containment (Robertson 2003). Indeed, children must be subject to the necessary guidance and discipline of adults, but they have to be partners in this process – not just passive recipients, if we talk about real inclusive schooling. In actual fact, legally, the paternalistic notion that the best interests of the child must be protected has increasingly come to be supplemented by the principle that children have a right to express their views and have their wishes taken into account in legal decisions which concern them (Cheminais 2006, p. 23). In particular, the Children Act 2004 carefully straddles the divide between protectionist or paternalist and participatory rights. Its guiding principle is that the childs welfare is paramount, but the legislation also supports the principle that, where possible and appropriate, the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned should inform decisions (HMSO 2004, Part 2). In truth the judiciary continue to interpret this latter requirement conservatively falling back on paternalistic assumptions of childrens incompetence (Robertson 2003). Thus, it comes as no surprise that Armstrong (2005, p.138) argues that a transformatory agenda [of New Labour government] may be characterized by the rhetoric of change rather than by any substantive transformation of values and practices. Moreover, contradicting to its own declared values concerning inclusive education New Labour government sees special schools at the front position of the wider education agenda and emphasises the need to recognise and value their contribution within a framework of inclusion (DfES 2003). It is obvious that continuation of segregated special schools is contravening human rights – real inclusion cannot happen in the special school. As recent studies on the trends in the UK educational system show that he formalisation of relationships in education has been encouraged by the growing tendency towards extending the scope of bureaucratic intervention in the everyday life of schools (Atkinson et al. 2002). Increasingly, every aspect of education is subjected to rule-making and regulated through inspection and auditing. As a result of a highly centralised system of education managed by an interventionist bureaucracy little is left to chance (Foley et al. 2003, p. 112). It has been noted that even primary school teachers are allowed little initiative to exercise their professional judgment. The national curriculum dominates the classroom and teachers activity is regulated by the need to respond to the demands of standardised tests and inspections (Thomas Vaughan 2004, p. 63). The expansion of bureaucratic control is justified on the grounds that it ensures the maintenance of standards of education (Armstrong 2005, p.141). While the impact of the standardisation of teaching on the quality of education is debatable, its consequences on the relationship between the different parties – teachers, students, local authorities, parents – are strikingly clear. New Labour government declared that its top priority is raising educational standards – it is a great target, but what is troubling that the governments purpose has also been clearly signalled – education is valued less for its intrinsic qualities of self-development and more for its contribution to creating a new kind of society (Armstrong 2005, p.136). In that way, future prosperity of the UK rests with its capacity to develop and harness the skills required to be a significant player in the new knowledge-based international economy. Here it is evident that New Labour government sees the role of education explicitly in terms of social engineering. It means that the inclusion agenda in the UK has a moral and rhetorical appeal, while its conceptual vagueness can be seen after closer analysis. Conclusion. The conducted study demonstrated that there are no simple solutions to the task of inclusive thinking, relations and practice, that here is no room for complacency in the pursuit of understanding and implementing inclusive education. Without a doubt, inclusion can make great contribution to maximising the participation of all learners and the removal of discriminatory and exclusionary assumptions and practices in schools. Fortunately, recently society has shifted from a sentimental approach to disability to one which concerns entitlement. Inclusive education theorists and practitioners have moved distinctly on from a preoccupation with mere physical location in a school or college and a campaigning for civil rights issues. Physical access and disability rights continue to be ongoing struggles and theoretical concerns but the overriding practical priority in schools is that of coping with difficult behaviour and with learning difficulties. Here it is important not to see inclusion as the concern of special educators but of concern to all those involved in the school or college settings. While the earlier integration focus tended to be on physical access and specialist resources, inclusive education implies a shared responsibility and a joint concern. In such a way, now SEN is at the core of educational agenda, and it is seen as the business of mainstream schools to address basic skills and to meet individual needs. If successfully implemented inclusive schooling can give the opportunity for children with a disability to participate fully in all the educational, employment, consumer, leisure, community and domestic activities that characterize everyday society. But to advance an agenda for inclusion and to make the ideals represented in New Labour government policies a meaningful reality in schools, the society has much to do. Our study proves rightfulness of Armstrong’ arguments that even if being ambitious and extensive New Labour’s policies promulgating inclusive education do not yielded in practical results for children with SEN. To date they remain in many aspects just a declaration of what changes in education would be implemented, but the rhetoric of change has not been followed by substantive transformation of values and practices towards inclusion. Many children come to school with problems. Recognition of this and sensitivity to it is part of inclusive education as we revealed in our study. A responsive school climate, which views problems as challenges and not obstacles, is a key factor in successful movement to really inclusive education. The focus in it has to be on institutional systems, attitudes, flexibility and responsiveness rather than on the special needs child. In order to provide such a highly developed level of inclusiveness, schools have to be willing to work consistently on improving and adapting both their curriculum and social climate. It has to be a school which relates to individual needs, institutional resources and to community values. Today inclusion in school settings, for all the political rhetoric, remains the cause of a good deal of anxiety with the vast majority of teachers, parents and children. To work to advance an agenda for inclusion, in the target-driven and achievement-oriented market place that education has become, requires placing emphasis on breaking down the barriers which create exclusion. It means that we have to work on the attainment of a more inclusive society, which is not solely the responsibility of teachers in schools, and which is most likely to be achieved only when we will be able to develop a more equitable educational system. References Ainscow, M. , Booth, T. , Dyson, A. , with Farrell, P. , Frankham, J. , Gallannaugh, F. , Howes, A. Smith, R. 2006, Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion, Routledge, London. HMSO 2004, The Children Act 2004, HMSO, London. Armstrong, D. 2005, Reinventing Inclusion: New Labour and the Cultural Politics of Special Education, Oxford Review of Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 135–151. Atkinson, T. , Cantillon, B. , Marlier, E. , Nolan, B. 2002, Social Indicators: The EU and Social Inclusion, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Booth, T. , Ainscow, M. 1998, From Them to Us: Setting up the Study, in From Them to Us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education, eds. T. Booth M. Ainscow, Routledge, London, pp. 1-20. Booth, T. , Ainscow, M. , Dyson, A. 1998, England: Inclusion and Exclusion in a Competitive System, in From Them to Us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education, eds. T. Booth M. Ainscow, Routledge, London, pp. 193-225. Clark, C. , Dyson, A. Millward, A. 1998, Introducing the Issue of Theorising, in Theorising Special Education, eds. C. Clark, A. Dyson A. Millward, Routledge, London, pp. 1-6. Cheminais, R. 2006, Every Child Matters: New Role for SENCOs, David Fulton Publishers, London. Clough, P. , Corbett, J. 2000, Theories of Inclusive Education: A Students’ Guide, Chapman, London. Corbett, J. 2001, Supporting Inclusive Education: A Connective Pedagogy, RoutledgeFalmer, London. DfES 2001, Inclusive Schooling: Children with Special Educational Needs, DfES Publications, Nottingham. DfES 2003, Every Child Matters, DfES Publications, London. Farrell, M. 2006, Celebrating the Special School, David Fulton Publishers, London. Foley, P. , Parton, N. , Roche, J. Tucker, S. 2003, Contradictory and Convergent Trends in Law and Policy Affecting Children in England, in Hearing the Voices of Children: Social Policy for a New Century, eds. C. Hallett A. Prout, Routledge, London, pp. 106-120. Mittler, P. 2000, Working Towards Inclusive Education: Social Contexts, David Fulton Publishers, London. Pugh, R. , 2005. Whose Children? The State and Child Welfare [online]. Phoenix, Arizona State University. Available from: http://www. asu.edu/xed/lectures/images/Pugh05. pdf [Accessed 25 April 2007]. Rieser, R. 2000, Special Educational Needs or Inclusive Education: The Challenge of Disability Discrimination in Schooling, in Education, Equality and Human Rights, ed. M. Cole, Falmer Press, London, pp. 141-161. Rose, R. 2003, Ideology, Reality and Pragmatics: Towards an Informed Policy for Inclusion, in Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice, eds. R. Rose C. Tilstone, RoutledgeFalmer, London, pp. 7-17. Robertson, C. 2003, Towards Inclusive Therapy: Policies and the Transformation of Practice, in Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice, eds.R. Rose C. Tilstone, RoutledgeFalmer, London, pp. 97-116. Skrtic, T. M. 1995, Special Education and Student Disability as Organizational Pathologies: Toward a Metatheory of School Organization and Change, in Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (Special) Education for Postmodernity, ed. T. M. Skrtic, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 190-232. Thomas, G. , Loxley, A. 2001, Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion, Open University Press, Buckingham. Thomas, G. , Vaughan, M. 2004, Inclusive Education: Readings and Reflections, Open University Press, London.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Essay -- Same-Sex Marriage Essays

As many minority groups in the United States have fought for their civil rights in past decades, it is the gay community that now finds itself striving for equal opportunities in our culturally diverse nation. Although they have already come a long way in the path of acceptance, most recently the gay community has had to confront extremist conservative groups who claim that allowing same-sex couples to join in a civilly recognized union violates the act of a traditional, sacred marriage. Gay and lesbian individuals feel that, like any other group, they should not be denied rights that are typically bestowed upon heterosexual couples who are recognized by the federal government. Certainly, there are states that have drafted and created protections for same-sex couples under civil unions and domestic partnership laws, however, the formation of such ordinances creates a separate and unequal status for some of America's citizens. As the precedent set by Brown V. The Board of Education exhibited in 1955, which pleaded a case for racial equality, the same theory of creating a separate but equal environment for groups of any nature has been proven to be unconstitutional. On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Most Americans opposing the Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriages belong to conservative, religious, or Republican groups. These opponents of homosexual equality fear that the allowance of same-sex marriages will lessen the validity of heterosexual marriages and make a mockery of the tradition that brings two loving souls together. Many argue that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman established for ... ...ago; those laws were overturned in 1967 and are now seen as absurd and discriminatory. Obviously, legalizing gay marriage in the United States will simplify the lives of same-sex couples and provide them with marriage benefits ranging from countless legal protections to rights allowing them to adopt, raise and share custody of children. Yes, civil unions and domestic partnership laws are leading the gay community in a positive direction as these laws are beneficiary to gay and lesbian couples. However, these protections are simply not representative of the American ideal that all men are created equal. DOMA restricts the recognition of gay and lesbian marriages or unions on a state-to-state level. If as citizens we truly are equal, then why aren't heterosexual marriages only recognized by the states that issue their marriage certificates?

Moon Colonization Is Bad

Moon Colonization July 20, 1989: President Bush uses the 20th anniversary of the first footsteps on the moon to declare that Americans should return, establish a permanent presence there, and go on to Mars (Hartmann). After Bush proposed this idea of creating a permanent colony on the moon to serve as a â€Å"pit stop† on the way to Mars, NASA took it as a mandate to start planning. This idea of moon colonies brought upon a mood that was not seen since the days of the Apollo missions. The possibilities of a moon colony are great. The problem of overcrowding could be solved.Taking millions of people (over a matter of time) to the moon would greatly reduce the Earth’s rapidly growing population. While the people are living there, industrial factories could be built, producing goods for further space exploration. Planetary Scientist for NASA, Alan Binder, says â€Å"†¦slowly but surely, the way our forefathers did in the New World, we'd build up an industrial capacit y in space. The moon opens up the solar system. If you have industrial capacity to build from lunar materials, the moon could be a harbor.You could go there first, on your way to Mercury, Venus, or Mars. † This is all seems like a good idea, that is if it didn’t cost the nation an arm and a leg to implement. Also, due to lack of knowledge, we do not know the full effects of the moons one sixth gravity effect on the human body. Furthermore, the moons lack of an atmosphere, and harsh geological conditions, would not be so kind to the equipment set up to build this industrial franchise. Not only will the colonization of the moon be costly and inefficient, but also detrimental to human health and safety.For starters, building a spaceship that is capable of creating a force strong enough to escape the gravitational pull of the Earth, support the life of humans for days, and be able to come back down through Earths atmosphere, costs millions of dollars. The Space Shuttle Ende avour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1. 7 billion (NASA. gov). And a colony in space would need supplies due to the lack of resources on the moon. Shipping those supplies to the Space colony would cost a lot.The cost per pound into orbit was around $1000 during the years of the space shuttle program (Allen). Incorporate inflation, and you have a multi million dollar shipment of food, clothing, tools, etc. Once all the tools are shipped and ready to build, there would be the cost of actually constructing a factory or place to live. Rome (on Earth) was not built in a day; imagine trying to build a city in the extreme weather conditions of the moon, where gravity’s pull is one sixth that of the Earth. Building this colony requires a 30 year plan, costing $500 to $600 billion dollars (Guterl).Those prices alone make the Moon colony extremely costly and inefficient. Now let us say that this colony was built, and people did live ther e. What effect would it have on the human body, being in an environment where there is constant sunlight? Located at the Lunar North Pole, where all the water for farming is, there is constant sunlight, day in and day out. Prolonged human exposure to solar UV radiation may result in acute and chronic health effects on the skin, eye and immune system. Sunburn (erythema) is the best-known acute effect of excessive UV radiation exposure.Over the longer term, UV radiation induces degenerative changes in cells of the skin, fibrous tissue and blood vessels leading to premature skin aging, photodermatoses and actinic keratoses. Another long-term effect is an inflammatory reaction of the eye. In the most serious cases, skin cancer and cataracts can occur (World Health Organization). These statistics were taken on Earth, where we have an atmosphere to block most of the Sun’s harmful rays. In an environment where there is no atmosphere at all, the effects would be indescribable.After a year of exposure people would end up with 3rd degree sunburns, old wrinkly skin, and a bad case of cataracts. The conditions on the Moon are just not safe for any human. Another health factor is the effect of living in an environment where the gravity is one sixth that of the Earths. Exposure to weightlessness over month-long periods has been demonstrated to cause deterioration of physiological systems, such as loss of bone and muscle mass and a depressed immune system (Webster). Because this would obviously be a permanent residence for the people living there, they would be there much longer than a month.On average, people lose about 30 percent of their strength between ages 50 and 70, and another 30 percent of what's left per decade after that. Generally, people lose about 1 percent of their lean muscle mass per year after age 40. After a year on the moon a humans bones and muscle mass would deteriorate so greatly that they would have the body of a weak elderly 85 year old. In ad dition to those health concerns Space travel weakens the body's immune system and alters infectious diseases, making them more potent and resistant to antibiotics (Webster). Dr.Cheryl Nickerson, an associate professor in Tulane University's department of microbiology and immunology, states, â€Å"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that infectious disease could be a real show stopper in space flight, as we start sending people out on two- to three-year missions and colonizing the moon, it's not a question of if an outbreak occurs but when. † Basically this moon colony could end up being eerily reminiscent of the black plague. After looking at all the facts, the colonization of the moon would put America and any other country who attempts to settle there, in hundreds of billions of dollars of debt.After it is set up, it would cost even more money to keep it up and running. The health effects from the low gravity would make permanent residency there not so permanen t, because it would lead to death. When we live here on Earth, were surrounded by a wonderful, safe, UV absorbing, solar wind blocking, and sun flare reflecting atmosphere, as where the Moon doesn’t even have any sort of atmosphere to protect human beings. In reality colonizing the moon wouldn’t solve any problems on Earth, it would only cause more.

Stress and Coping

The psychosocial theory of stress and coping is of the utmost importance to patient care and recovery. It has been found that among other things, stress can affect the rate of wound healing, susceptibility to infectious diseases, and the development and progression of cancer (Walker et al, 2007). The nurse plays an integral role in the management and alleviation of patients’ stress, and can provide valuable mechanisms to aid in the process of coping with the stressor. Stress is a concept, not a fact, and is best described by using a theoretical model (Walker et al, 2007). One of these models is the Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model of stress and coping. It suggests that stress can be reduced by interventions that make the person think differently about the stressor, or that a person’s perception of their ability to cope with the stressor can be changed (Glanze et al, 2008). In the text to follow, it will demonstrate how nursing care has benefited from the application of this theoretical model, and how particular nursing care interventions can help change patients’ perspective of certain stressors, and their ability to cope with the stressor. The entire family, not just the patient experiences the stresses associated with a family member being hospitalized (Lewis et al, 1989). By involving the family in a patient’s care regime it can change the person’s perspective of their ability to cope, by providing a support network, and can help alleviate not only the patient’s stress, but the stress of the family too. The nurse needs to understand what family means to the patient. It might not be traditional, for example related by blood, or married. Patient care should be planned with the family in mind, and families should be made aware of what the care plan is. This way they are better equipped to support the patient (Lewis et al, 1989).