IELTS Academic Reading Practice Passages

The first recorded case of an airline passenger turning seriously violent during a flight, a phenomenon now widely known as "air rage", happened in 1947 on a flight from Havana to Miami. A drunk man assaulted another passenger and bit a flight attendant. However, the man escaped punishment because it was not then clear under whose legal control a crime committed on plane was, the country where the plane was registered or the country where the crime was committed. In 1963, at the Tokyo convention, it was decided that the laws of the country where the plane is registered take precedence.

The frequency of air rage has expanded out of proportion to the growth of air travel. Until recently few statistics were gathered about air rage, but those that have been indicate that passengers are increasingly likely to cause trouble or engage in violent acts. For example, in 1998 there were 266 air rage incidents out of approximately four million passengers, a 400% increase from 1995. In the same period American Airlines showed a 200% rise. Air travel is predicted to rise by 5% internationally by 2010 leading to increased airport congestion. This, coupled with the flying public's increased aggression, means that air rage may become a major issue in coming years.

Aside from discomfort and disruption, air rage poses some very real dangers to flying. The most extreme of these is when out of control passengers enter the cockpit. This has actually happened on a number of occasions, the worst of which have resulted in the death and injury of pilots or the intruder taking control of the plane, almost resulting in crashes. In addition, berserk passengers sometimes attempt to open the emergency doors while in flight, putting the whole aircraft in danger. These are extreme examples and cases of air rage more commonly result in physical assaults on fellow passengers and crew such as throwing objects, punching, stabbing or scalding with hot coffee.

The causes of air rage are not known for certain, but it is generally thought that factors include: passenger behavior and personality, the physical environment and changes in society. A recent study has identified the issues that start the incidents to be as follows.

Alcohol 25%

Seating 16%

Smoking 10%

Carry on luggage 9%

Flight attendants 8%

Food 5%

One of the major causes seems to be the passenger's behavior or their personality. Fear of flying and the feeling of powerlessness associated with flying can lead to irritable or aggressive passengers. Also, alcohol consumed on a plane pressurized to 8000ft affects the drinker more quickly and the effects are stronger. Many people do not take account of this and drinking may increase any negative reaction to the flying environment they have, which, combined with the lowering of their inhibitions, may cause air rage. Smoking withdrawal, which some liken in severity to opiate withdrawal, is another major cause of air rage incidents. Passengers caught smoking in the toilets occasionally assault flight attendants and have been known to start fires. When conflicts occur in these conditions, they can escalate into major incidents if the passenger has a violent personality or a fear of flying and because of the enclosed nature of a plane offers no option of retreat as would be natural in a "fight or flight" reaction.

Some people feel that the physical environment of a plane can lead to air rage. Seats on most airlines have become smaller in recent years as airlines try to increase profits. This leads to uncomfortable and irritated passengers. Also, space for carry on luggage is often very small. Because up to 8% of checked in luggage is lost, misdirected or stolen, passengers have been trying to fit larger carry on items into these small storage areas and this can lead to disputes that can escalate into air rage. Airlines could also be to blame by raising passengers' expectations too high with their marketing and advertising. Many air rage incidents start when disappointed passengers demand to be reseated. Finally, there is some evidence to show that low oxygen levels can raise aggression level and make people feel more desperate. Airlines have lowered oxygen levels to save money. Now the level of oxygen in the air that the pilots breathe is ten times higher than in cabin class.

Another reason that has been suggested is that society is getting ruder and less patient. The increased congestion at airports, longer queues and increased delays have only added to this. In addition, some air rage incidents have been linked to the demanding nature of high achieving business people, who do not like people telling them what to do and resent the power that the cabin staff have over them. For them, a flight attendant is a waiter or waitress who should do what the passenger wants.

The strongest calls for action to control air rage have come from pilots and aircrew. The International Transport Workers' Federation argues that there are too many loopholes that let people escape punishment and that the penalties are too light. They want to notify all passengers of the penalties for air rage before taking off, rather than after the passenger begins to cause serious problems, when it may be too late. The Civil Aviation Organisation has been organizing international cooperation and penalties have increased in recent years. The most severe punishment so far has been a 51 month jail sentence, a fine to pay for the jet fuel used and 200 hours community service for a man who attempted to enter the cockpit and to open the emergency door of a domestic US flight.

Various other measures are being used to control air rage. Air crew are getting training on how to calm passengers and how to predict where incidents might result in air rage and take action to prevent this. Other measures include, strengthening doors to stop people entering the cockpit, training crew in the use of plastic restraints to tie down unruly passengers and having pilots divert their planes if passengers cause problems. Banning passengers who are guilty of air rage from flying has also been tried to a lesser extent

The power of the wind has been used for centuries to directly drive various machines to perform such tasks as grinding wheat or pumping water. Recently, however, the wind has joined other natural forces such as water and steam as a viable method of generating electricity.

Traditional means of electricity generation using coal or oil-fueled plants have two major drawbacks; they pollute the environment and the fuels they use are inefficient and non-renewable. In response to growing environmental awareness there have been calls for a greener alternative. Nuclear power, while more efficient and less polluting, is seen by many people as unacceptable, because of the danger of accidents such as those that happened at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Wind power, however, is clean, renewable and, with modern advances, surprisingly efficient.

In the 1970s Britain was in the forefront of research into wind power. The interest in wind diminished in the 1980s due to cheap North Sea oil, a strong pro-nuclear lobby and pricing structures that made it uneconomical to set up wind farms. Britain, the windiest country in Europe, had to wait until 1991 for its first wind farm. Located at Delabole in Cornwall, the farm was originally the idea of locals who opposed the construction of a nuclear power plant nearby and decided to set up a private company to generate power for the area using the wind. They had to fight opposition from local government and other local residents, who thought the turbines would be noisy and might interfere with television signals, but eventually, after showing local officials working wind farms in Denmark, they won and now there are 10 huge white wind turbines on the Delabole hills.

It is in Germany and Denmark that the greatest advances in wind power have come. Germany alone produces half of the wind generated electricity in Europe. Every year Germany adds 400 Megawatts (Mw) of capacity. In 2000 alone capacity expanded by 1669 Mw. Denmark now produces 30% of its electricity from wind power and this is predicted to rise to 50% by 2010. Both countries have encouraged this growth by "fixed feed tariffs" which guarantee a good price for private wind power operators.

Britain is catching up and the government has set a target 10% of all electricity to come from renewable sources by 2010, half of this to be from wind power. The 900 wind turbines in operation generate 400Mw of electricity and to meet the target roughly 400Mw will need to be added each year. With the advances in technology this is technically possible. Each turbine can now produce 400 Kilowatts (KW) compared to only 70 KW at the start of the 1980s. It will, however, need help from the government. This is being done by offering financial support and giving private power companies targets to meet.

Because many people feel wind farms spoil the view and, also, because the wind is stronger at sea, many wind farms are now being built offshore. They are usually built a few kilometres off the coast in shallow water. The construction and maintenance costs are higher, but electricity output is higher. The first in Britain was built in 2000 at Blyth, north of Newcastle, and was the largest in the world until May 2001, when a 20 turbine farm was opened at Middelgruden off Copenhagen. There are plans to construct up to 18 more in the UK by 2010. Together they will produce 800 Mw of electricity annually.

The use of wind power is far less advanced in the USA. Only 5% of America's power comes from the wind, although it is estimated that this could be increased to as high as 12% with no changes to the power grid. However, there is an increased interest in wind power. There are plans to build a huge offshore wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod on the North East seaboard. The farm will take up over 25 square miles, have 170 turbines and produce 420Mw at a cost of $600m. If constructed, it will be the world's second biggest wind farm, after the 520Mw farm planned in Ireland.

The shipping container is one of the mainstays of international trade. The globalised modern economy depends on the rapid and efficient movement of goods that containerisation allows. In many ways it was the advent of the container that allowed this globalised economy to develop.

Invented during World War two as an efficient method of moving equipment to the front lines, there are now at any one time up to 15 million containers being used to transport goods on land and sea or waiting to be filled at factories and ports. They are vital in the supply chain and have allowed the added efficiency of "just in time" inventory management, where companies no longer keep large warehouses of stock or parts, but rely on the ability to quickly order what they want from their suppliers. It is estimated that since the 1980s the ratio of inventory to GDP in American business' has fallen from 25% to 15%. Altogether total business inventory in the US is estimated at $1.5 trillion, without "just in time" management methods this might be as much as $2.5 trillion.

This means that companies rely more and more on the prompt delivery of parts from their suppliers to fulfill orders. This is particularly true of industries such as computer manufacture, which no longer make all the parts of the products that bear their names, but instead out source, often to suppliers half way around the world. American computer manufacturers are, for example, increasingly dependent on Asian microchip manufacturers in countries such as Taiwan and Thailand. An example of the kind of problems any disruption to the supply chain causes came after the September 11 attacks in the US when the Canadian border was shut for just two days causing chaos in the Detroit car industry, which relies on a regular flow of parts from Canada.

There are three main flows of sea borne cargo: trans-Pacific, trans-Atlantic and Europe-Far East. The trans-Pacific route is by far the largest flow. At 11 million TEU ("twenty foot equivalent units") a year, it is almost twice the volume of Europe-Far East trade and three times the size of trans-Atlantic traffic. During the 1990s, during America's boom years, the trade of all the routes grew enormously and this led to more and larger ships being built. The container fleet grew by 12% in 2001. Until then, a container ship commonly carried 600 TEU, during the 1990s ships were being build that could carry up to 8000 TEU. However after the 1990s there was a dramatic fall off in trade. Trans-Pacific trade, for example, fell to 50% of its 1990s high.

This down turn is being handled by the shipping alliances which manage the global trade. These large organizations are responsible for maintaining the fleets and seeing that the flow of goods is uninterrupted. This is a job that governments feel that the regular and reliable flow of trade is so important that in many cases the shipping alliances are exempt from anti-trust and monopoly laws. Their response has been to cut services, rest some of the older ships and share the burden amongst themselves.

At first, containers reduced theft as it was more difficult for casual thieves to get into the containers. However, criminal gangs soon saw the potential for taking whole containers. This became a profitable crime as the average value of a container grew to $500,000 by the 1980s. Criminals also benefited from the convenience of containers when using them to transport drugs, illegal immigrants or other illegal goods. Measures to combat this, including stronger locks and preference schemes for shippers who have anti-theft programmes, have had some success, but crime is a constant menace to the container trade.

Increasingly, the huge number of containers and their self-contained and enclosed nature has been raising worries about their possible use by terrorists. In fact, possible terrorists have already been found hiding in containers. This is particularly worrying considering that only 2% of containers are inspected. Containers are also extremely difficult to track and monitor. This is because they pass through so many countries and jurisdictions and because they can travel on both land and sea. Each transaction involving a container can involve as many as 25 different parties and generate between 30 and 40 documents. For a ship carrying 600 TEU this would result in approximately 4000 documents. The sheer scale of the information involved makes tracking containers a daunting task. Screening them to determine the contents is another solution that would take a great deal of effort because of the large numbers of containers. Additionally, it might cause delays in delivery that would disrupt international trade and industry out of proportion to the good the searches do.

For the foreseeable future, there would seem to be no alternative to containers and their use is bound to grow. They are one of the cornerstones of global trade, but many yet cause problems their inventors never envisaged.