The individual assignment is an individual report on a fatal B52 aircraft accident that occurred at Fairchild AFB in June 1994. Your report should consider only the aerodynamic aspects of the accident, and conclude what, in your opinion, caused the aircraft to crash. Pertinent details of the accident have been provided in the lecture notes. Maximum length: 1500-2000 words (word count should be provided). Criteria & Marking: Marking matrix will be provided for this task.

Technical Presentation (10%) Organise, compose and present information in a clear, attractive and logical way, in accordance with Aviation Writing Style manual, Version 5.1 • No relevant graphics • No order • Large parts of unintelligible language use • Few or unimpressive graphics • Little order • Large parts of unintelligible language use • Use of graphics generally supports information presented; • Major informative parts are arranged logically; • Uses some graphics to explain key points; • Information is organized with identifiable structure; • Few major technical or language errors • Uses some graphics to explain key points; • Information is organized with clear and logical structure; • No major technical or language errors • Uses some graphics to explain key points; • Information is well organized with clear and logical structure; • No technical or language errors

Demonstrated engagement with research (10%) Comprehend and use research sources as supporting evidence with correct referencing (APA6th) Lacks evidence of reading of research sources and/or not relevant to the topic; • Lack of sources as supporting evidence and/or not relevant to the topic; • References are not provided/ incorrect Lacks evidence of reading of research sources and/or not relevant to the topic; • Lack of and/or incomplete use of sources as supporting evidence and/or not relevant to the topic; • References are not acknowledged and/ or are incorrect Evidence of reading of research sources but with some gaps; • Limited and/or incomplete use of sources as supporting evidence; • Selected sources? are of limited range where acknowledged and/ or are incomplete Generally a considered reading of research sources; • Relevant sources as supporting evidence are used with some fluency; • Selected sources? are of reasonable range of scholarly and other, correctly acknowledged but with some gaps Well-considered reading of research sources; • Relevant sources as supporting evidence are used with fluency;

SG3 (20%) Analyse at which stage the accident became inevitable (ie the pilot unable to recover before ground contact) • No consideration • Consideration given but totally irrelevant or erroneous • Consideration given logical and consistent with argument above (SG2) • Consideration given logical, well explained and consistent with argument above (SG2) • Consideration given logical, very well explained and consistent with argument above (SG2) • Consideration given logical, well explained and consistent with argument above (SG2), supported by research and references

SG1 (20%) Describe the sequence of events leading to the accident, in chronological order, with explanation where necessary • Not attempted • Weak attempt • Major events listed only • Major events outlined • Basic description provided • Described well, with detailed information provided • Both description and information fully provided • Esteemed sources quoted • No unnecessary information (concise) SG2 (20%) Critically evaluate the aerodynamic aspects involved, in chronological order • Many errors or no explanation given • Many misconceptions • Major key points contain erroneous information • Major key points explained • Sequence of events logical and well explained • Major key points well explained • Sequence of events logical and very well explained • Major key points explained in detail and systematically • Sequence of events logical and very well explained, with no inconsistencies. • Major key points explained correctly, systematically and thoroughly • Sequence of events logical and very well explained, with no inconsistencies • Research to support analysis, with references

Assessment Criteria Learning outcome Levels of performance/ achievement SG 1, 2, 3, 4 Grade Cat: Mark: 1,2 Fail - Student demonstrated an unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. There was evidence of achievement of desired learning outcomes below the passing standard. 3 Fail - Student demonstrated an unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. There was evidence of achievement of desired learning outcomes close to the passing standard but insufficient to pass 4 Pass - Student demonstrated a satisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. 5 Credit - Student demonstrated a good quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. 6 Distinction - Student demonstrated a high quality of performance or standard of learning achievement 7 High Distinction - Student demonstrated an exceptionally high quality of performance or standard of learning achievement.