National Academies Press: OpenBook

Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management (2015)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Safety Management System Overview
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22091.
×
Page 27

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

12 Fundamentally, a Safety Management System (SMS) comprises a series of policies, processes, procedures, and documentation that allows management and staff to more effectively understand safety trends within the airport environment. Quality data (information), data management, and data trending allow for a proactive ability to forecast possible safety events. Within an airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) or diverse WHM programs, such data play a signifi- cant role in the development of activities, including appropriate controls and mitigations such as habitat modification, exclusion, population control, hazing, depredation, and operational consid- erations. Results derived from data management tools should be used to support all airport WHM program decisions and associated actions and to assist in prioritizing the most urgent (highest risk) wildlife hazards. Regardless of the size, formality, or function of the airport’s WHM efforts, the four SMS components can assist with standardizing safety processes and procedures by establish- ing a framework and safety risk thresholds that guide prioritizing and funding actions to prevent or mitigate potential risks associated with wildlife hazards. This chapter provides an overview of the four SMS components and discusses their specific application to any size or operation of an airport WHM program. If the airport has implemented an SMS, the activities associated with these components would align with the current SMS; how- ever, if the airport does not have an SMS, the proposed activities could be developed in conjunc- tion with or as an enhancement to an existing WHM program. The Safety Risk Management (SRM) and Safety Assurance components are the most relevant, applicable, and useful to imple- ment as part of a formal SMS approach to WHM; if possible, however, all four SMS components are recommended to be implemented as a means to establish a comprehensive and effective SMS. 4.1 Safety Policy Safety Policy guides how the airport structures and conducts its SMS. This component iden- tifies the roles, responsibilities, and duties for the safety manager, accountable executive, and other applicable staff, such as wildlife managers, operations staff, and wildlife biologists. It also defines duties for safety and wildlife committees and their participants, and it works in conjunc- tion with the identified roles and responsibilities of other assigned SMS staff to ensure account- ability at all levels of the organization. Furthermore, Safety Policy outlines the metrics by which the program’s success is to be measured. The Safety Policy typically includes specific objectives and goals that reflect the program and expected outcomes and that are, most importantly, mea- surable and measured. These actions, targets, and milestones are reviewed and updated annually (or more frequently) to match Safety Policy goals with the specific strategic and tactical actions necessary to meet the objectives. Safety Policy objectives align with the SMS Safety Assurance component as part of the overall program evaluation and assessment process, along with con- tinuous improvements and analysis of hazard mitigations. C H A P T E R 4 The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management

The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management 13 Safety Policy Statement The Safety Policy Statement provides direction for the SMS. This document guides and commits the organization, management, staff, and tenants to safe airport operations. The statement outlines management’s commitment to safety and invites tenants to participate in the SMS. It often com- prises a mission, a vision, and a statement of core values, and it is backed by quantifiable SMS objec- tives or goals. An airport’s Safety Policy Statement should take into consideration safety concepts that can apply equally to all aspects of airport safety, including airside operations, staff and tenant safety, and wildlife management. The statement should be easily understandable by managers, employees, and tenants, and it should take into account the airport’s complexity and structure (FAA 2012a). Safety Policy Statement Applied to Wildlife Hazard Management As applied to WHM, an airport’s SMS Safety Policy Statement should: • Maintain a relatively broad focus that does not restrict the WHM program. • State the WHM program goals. • Take into account the wildlife and associated safety aspects of the WHM program and include realistic objectives that a WHM program can achieve. For example: a WHM-related objective could be to reduce the need for wildlife depredation through increased pyrotechnics harass- ment practices, or to implement new habitat management strategies that reduce the presence of wildlife attractants. Figure 3 presents a sample Safety Policy Statement as a reference. All aspects of the Safety Policy Statement can be applied to airport WHM programs including: • Establishing a safe environment for staff and tenants through reduction of bird strikes and focused habitat management. Source: FAA Draft AC 150/5200-37A, Safety Management Systems for Airports Figure 3. Sample Safety Policy Statement.

14 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management • Minimizing exposures to hazards and risks through review of wildlife management mitigations and successes, and through tracking, recording, and managing high risk species and behaviors. • Encouraging and managing reporting of wildlife strikes by staff and tenants, and encouraging continuous improvements through formal development and monitoring of WHAs, WHSVs, and WHMPs. Roles and Responsibilities • The airport’s SMS-related staff duties should include participation from wildlife manage- ment staff, qualified airport wildlife biologists (QAWBs), and operations team members that are involved in the airport’s WHM activities such as harassment, deterrence, depredation, and communications. • Management may want to assign specific staff to participate on SMS committees or establish and document core duties for those staff assisting in managing wildlife at the airport, including oversight of wildlife during construction operations to ensure that construction activities do not increase or encourage wildlife presence. Objectives and Metrics • The SMS establishes key metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs) as a means to measure safety at the airport. • WHM metrics should be included in formal reporting and tracking to indicate changes in wildlife risk conditions at the airport. Establishing metrics requires setting a baseline of exist- ing data (current wildlife management efforts) and implementing operational controls to subsequently trend upward or downward activities that are also referred to as leading or lag- ging indicators. Much of this information is collected or established during Part 139 inspec- tions, the execution of WHAs, or as part of the overall WHMP. However, the data may not be centralized or documented in a way that provides trending opportunities. Data can be collected in spreadsheets or using custom software applications. The operational complexity and size of the airport typically drives the need for a larger, more robust system, but a spread- sheet can become a valuable tool with little to no cost beyond a few courses or instructional guides, plus the time to input an initial, solid set of data. Regardless of the system used, the goal is to compile sufficient information to observe trends. For example, a single event or incident reported every 5 to 10 years may not provide sufficient information to detect trends. In some cases, trends can be detected within a few months and in other cases multiple years’ data, such as migratory patterns and seasonal habitat changes, would be required to produce sufficient outputs. • Baseline data could include: – Wildlife counts during daily operations. – Wildlife counts during seasonal and migratory periods. – Number of wildlife strikes by group or guild (birds, mammals, reptiles) reported by air- port staff and tenants. (Trends in reporting activities by staff and tenants could be used to encourage and promote reporting activities.) – Comparison of local wildlife strike data to the national FAA Wildlife Strike Database to determine reporting behaviors. – Type, location, and frequency of harassment, by wildlife group or guild. – Number and type of captures and depredations, including locations of activity. – Type of habitat (e.g., composting, wastewater, natural wetland, golf course) and mitigation by location and distance from the airport’s airside operations. – Proximity of wildlife to the airport’s airside operations, including locations within perimeter fence and outside perimeter fence at documented distances such as 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet, 5 miles, and greater than 5 miles.

The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management 15 • Once baseline data have been collected, metrics can be established to access, analyze, and trend activities. Most airport staff and wildlife managers are aware of the most sig- nificant wildlife concerns at and surrounding their airport; consequently, initial metrics should focus on known problems. Additional goals and metrics can be established later as more data are collected and analyzed. The metrics to support program goals and objec- tives should be realistic and should evolve as the program information is collected and applied. • Examples of wildlife goals include: – Maintain or reduce wildlife activities during construction. – Decrease wildlife through habitat changes and modifications. – Increase reporting of wildlife strikes and hazards from staff and tenants through promo- tional campaigns. – Decrease wildlife during seasonal migrations through increased or more sophisticated harassment techniques. – Increase captures and decrease depredations. – Decrease large mammal and predator presence through rodent control or fencing projects. – Decrease wildlife presence immediately outside of the perimeter fence through awareness campaigns, rubbish removal and maintenance, habitat removal, etc. • In addition to the airport operations or WHM staff data collection and analysis process, the Wildlife Hazard Management Risk Assessment Tool (WHaMRAT) can assist in setting a base- line Wildlife Risk Score from which trends can be assessed as necessary in conjunction with the overall WHM program. For example, changes in the Wildlife Risk Score can be examined for quarterly or annual reviews of the WHM program, on the basis of seasonal changes, or on an ad hoc basis to determine if—and how—changes in existing operational controls or new mitigations have affected the risk score. 4.2 Safety Risk Management Contrary to popular opinion, safety does not mean that airports operate or exist in an envi- ronment that is free from risk. With that in mind, the aim with SRM is to create a safe operation that is free from unacceptable risk. This means that airport operators and safety personnel recog- nize that risk is unavoidable and that hazardous conditions exist within all aviation operations. The goals of SRM are to identify and mitigate hazards, and to prevent harmful consequences or outcomes from occurring. SRM is a formal, structured set of processes used to proactively identify hazards, classify and prioritize associated safety risks, apply corrective actions to mitigate risks, and continuously improve operational safety. As a component of the SMS, the objective of SRM is to provide sup- porting information for decision makers by identifying hazards, analyzing safety risk, assessing safety risk, and developing controls (FAA 2012a). Data trending outcomes (leading indicators) or a specific wildlife-related accident or inci- dent may cause airport or wildlife management staff to formally assess a particular operation, procedure, or protocol to better understand the underlying wildlife hazards and associated risks. Conversely, staff and management may decide to conduct an overall WHM program risk assessment to determine the general well-being of the airport’s wildlife program as part of a baseline review. The SRM process allows for a standardized procedure and approach to document and quan- tify hazards and risks, and to develop specific mitigations and monitoring programs to observe whether existing wildlife management controls (efforts) are improved or diminished through new mitigations.

16 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management To effectively prioritize and mitigate risks, it is important to develop a consistent, standard- ized risk analysis method. The definitions and categories used to classify risk should be applied consistently to all safety risks within the airport’s system; for example, classifications should be used consistently for operations and wildlife Safety Assessments (SAs). Doing this will ensure not only the even application of risk analysis, but also the accuracy of tracking and trending. Risk analysis and assessment may be conducted by a variety of subject matter experts. These experts weigh in on the potential risk scenarios by using either a standardized or organizationally developed risk matrix such as the example provided in Figure 4. Then, either individually or as a group, the experts analyze the hazards and rank and record the risks for resolution, monitoring, and reporting. Development of a risk matrix can be unique to each airport’s needs. However a risk matrix must include a variety of risk-severity definitions and thresholds on the x-axis and a series of likelihood (probability) thresholds on the y-axis. The goal is to create a matrix with sufficient levels of the details needed to rank or score specific hazards using quantitative and qualitative means. Developing a realistic risk matrix and subsequent model for assessing wildlife hazards includes the challenge of determining: • Wildlife severity and likelihood of strike. • Airport operations and tempo by aircraft type. • Habitat presence, both on-airport and off-airport, and evaluation of attraction to wildlife. • Habitat mitigation effectiveness. • Wildlife mitigation effectiveness. Qualitative analysis uses non-measurable data, such as past experience, anecdotal evidence, or observation, to make decisions or determinations. Quantitative analysis uses verifiable measurable data to make decisions or determinations. Most risk assessments use a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis, such as industry expertise and knowledge along with strike data. In analyzing both severity and likelihood, the most accurate risk ranking outcomes result from the application of quantitative data as part of the analysis. Analyses with insufficient or incomplete quantitative data sets must rely on the inclusion of as many subject matter experts as possible, or on estimates of data based on other sources. Individual years of experience, lessons learned, and memo- ries of past events can be extremely useful in determining the severity and likelihood of a hazard. An organization’s risk tolerance determines the level of risk it is willing to knowingly accept— and, by extension, its requirements for mitigating risks. An airport’s risk tolerance will dictate the prioritization of risks for mitigation treatment, including which risks are deemed acceptable Source: Adapted from FAA Order 8040.4A, Safety Risk Management. Figure 4. Risk matrix.

The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management 17 and will not be mitigated. The organizational risk tolerance is represented directly on the risk matrix. In Figure 4, the red areas represent high risk, whereas the yellow and green areas rep- resent moderate and low risk, respectively. In this example, the organization could determine several factors related to risk tolerance and prioritization: • High risk is unacceptable and requires mitigation. • High risk can be defined by any risk that can be plotted within the red zone. • Moderate risk is the highest acceptable risk, but should be mitigated whenever possible. • Low risk may be acceptable without restriction or limitation; however, it should be tracked and monitored to ensure it does not become a moderate risk. (Likelihood would be a factor to monitor in this case.) • Treatment or mitigation activities should be prioritized based on risk, with high risk hazards always given the highest priority. Determining the organization’s risk tolerance is a critical decision that should be undertaken and accepted by the entire airport, including representatives from operations, risk, maintenance, and wildlife management at a minimum. Regulatory requirements may dictate or override an individual airport’s risk tolerance level. The WHaMRAT provides risk matrices that can be used to assist an airport in producing an Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score representative of current wildlife hazards at the airport. These matrices are presented as templates adapted from the matrices presented in the safety litera- ture, including FAA publications. The matrices in the WHaMRAT use definitions for severity and likelihood and take into consideration number and type of aircraft operations, habitat param- eters, and mitigation efforts as adjustments. Changes made to match or update an airport’s WHM program are reflected in the WHaMRAT, and could result in a change in the Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. The SRM component of SMS would encompass the WHaMRAT results using the standard five-step risk assessment process described in this chapter. Specific guidance and definitions to use with the WHaMRAT are provided in Appendix C. Proactive hazard identification and mitigation as practiced under SRM are core to an air- port’s SMS and reflect the most significant change to Part 139 operations. A successful hazard identification process provides standardization, consistency, and comprehensiveness in its collection of information about potential hazards. It also allows for the possibility that not all potential hazards reported will present an actual safety risk, and that some potential hazards may therefore need to be removed from the SRM process. Additionally, the hazard identifica- tion process should ensure that hazards are appropriately recorded, stored, and documented at the beginning of the SRM process to assist in further analysis and downstream tracking and trending. The process used to analyze risk is commonly called a Safety Risk Assessment (SRA) or simply a Safety Assessment (SA). SRAs/SAs can be conducted by a formal panel that includes various stakeholders or as part of an airport’s daily operations through real-time operational assess- ments and decisions. Both processes fall under the SMS umbrella and share key SRM processes. Figure 5 illustrates the SMS, SRM, and SA relationships. The SA results in a product or outcome within the SRM component. SAs employ a formal five-step process as presented in Figure 6. An additional function that is not articulated in the five steps but is critical to the SRM process is the monitoring of mitigations to assess whether new hazards or diminished controls result from the mitigation, to determine if the mitigation is suc- cessful, and to decide whether new permanent safety controls or efforts should be implemented as part of the mitigation. These monitoring activities lead to continuous improvements that are addressed as part of Safety Assurance. Each of the five steps is briefly described in Figure 6, and an example of the process is provided in the outlined text.

18 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management Safety Assessment (SA) is the risk assessment (e.g., conducted by a panel of subject matter experts). Safety Risk Management (SRM) is the process/program of identifying hazards, analyzing and assessing the risks, and mitigating the risks. Safety Management System (SMS) is the overall system of processes, procedures, policies, etc. Source: Landry Consultants LLC Figure 5. SMS, SRM, and SA relationships. Identify Hazards Analyze Risks Assess Risks Mitigate Risks Describe System Identify actions, controls or other measures to reduce the likelihood of consequences associated with a hazard. Reduce the predicted risk level to moderate or low. Identify all related systems and include operational, procedural, organizational, and environmental factors, as well as physical characteristics. Identify any condition or situation that could create adverse safety consequences for the airport, users, and surrounding community. Include operational, personnel, organizational, and environmental factors. For each hazard, identify the worst case outcomes that are reasonable or credible within the operational lifetime of the system. Determine consequences likelihood and initial risk level. Severity and likelihood are used to determine associated risk using a predictive risk matrix. Source: FAA SRM panel facilitation slide template Figure 6. The formal five-step SA process. Example of a Formal Safety Assessment of a Wildlife Safety Concern 1. Define the System: Because of recent heavy rainfall, a retaining pond adjacent to an airport runway has filled with rainwater and is creating a wildlife attrac- tant to Canada Geese. The system state is heavy rainfall, and the subsequent filling of the retaining pond. At least 12 geese were observed multiple times in the last day. The cause is wildlife attractant (rainwater). 2. Identify Hazard(s): The hazard is the increased presence of Canada Geese within the proximity of an active runway. The effect or consequence is a potential wildlife strike with potential engine ingestion.

The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management 19 Safety Risk Management Applied to Wildlife Hazard Management The SRM component of SMS as applied to WHM could include the following proposed activities. (See also Objectives and Metrics under Section 4.1 in this chapter as a means to begin hazard analysis through trending.) Hazard Identification and Sources • Conduct a WHA or WHSV or review existing assessment. • Review the WHMP and compile into a comprehensive hazard list for tracking and trending. • Conduct a review of Part 139 wildlife inspections for trends. • Conduct a wildlife hazard review through Part 139 inspection records analysis, wildlife strike reports, and FAA Wildlife Strike Database data review, current information collected by third parties and staff, and assess the findings to find trends and associated possible hazards. 3. Analyze the Risk(s): Based on the current scenario and using the risk matrix in Figure 4, the severity (severity is always assessed first) is considered a 4 given that Canada Geese have severe impacts on aircraft because of their body mass; the likelihood is a 2 because of the abundance or number of Canada Geese observed (12). 4. Assess the Risk(s): Using the risk matrix in Figure 4, the plotted risk falls into the yellow quadrant, reflecting a “moderate” risk. Per established airport risk definitions and thresholds, a moderate risk requires that mitigation measures or additional controls be implemented to reduce the risk of the hazard. 5. Mitigate the Risk(s): The airport’s operations and wildlife management teams assess existing safety controls that include recurring pyrotechnics harassment practices and determine that the most effective mitigation is to install wildlife bird balls to restrict Canada Geese from landing on the water and retaining pond perimeter. An additional mitigation considered is draining the pond. The team also establishes a wildlife monitoring program to count the number of Canada Geese in the area. The monitoring program includes three inspections daily within week 1, one inspection daily during week 2, and weekly inspections for an additional month. Based on monitoring results, additional mitigations may be required to reduce the risk. After a month, no Canada Geese are observed in the retaining pond area. The hazard is reassessed by the team. The severity remains assessed as a 4 because the risk of severity is not diminished (Canada Geese are considered “moderate risk” due to their size). The likelihood, however, is lowered to a 1, because of the number of Canada Geese now observed in the area (none). The risk rank falls into the green quadrant, corresponding to a “low” risk. Based on the reassess- ment, no additional monitoring is conducted. The team logs the information in the WHM software program or notebook for future reference and reporting. Notes: • Cause: Events that lead to or result in a hazard or hazardous condition. • Hazard: Any real or potential condition that can cause injury, illness, or death to people; damage to or loss of a system, equipment, or property; or damage to the environment. • Effect, Consequence: Outcome or harm of a hazard for a given system state.

20 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management • Prioritize the list into a top-10 list for immediate hazard assessment and risk ranking. • Reprioritize the list after assessment to identify and rank hazards by risk level (red, yellow, green). • Identify various mitigations and additional efforts necessary to reduce the risk ranking. • Assign costs to each mitigation, including complete redesigns, removals, or refurbishments; additional safety devices, such as hazing equipment; and increased staffing, additional training, and new or revised procedures or protocols. • Identify existing controls (e.g., habitat management, harassment, relocation, and depreda- tion) and other mitigations used to manage wildlife. Begin to assess quality and effectiveness of the existing controls through documentation and review. Formal Use of SRM • Conduct individual five-step SAs for the top-10 hazards (identified through the various means and processes identified in the hazard identification options listed), and document risk ranks, additional mitigations, and monitoring plans for each hazard. The SA can be accomplished all at once or over a period of time, depending on the availability of staff. • Use the WHaMRAT to perform a comprehensive wildlife SRM assessment for the airport and document results. • Determine how frequently wildlife hazard reassessment will be performed and assign responsi- bility to appropriate staff. (For additional guidance on continuous improvement and monitor- ing, see Section 4.3, Safety Assurance.). Document Mitigation Measures, Monitor Programs, and Assess Outcomes • For each of the top-10 hazards, document changes to the hazard risk ranking based on additional mitigation results, and identify whether the additional mitigations were successful through observations and data collection and analysis. • Assess wildlife monitoring plans to determine if the duration and frequency of existing moni- toring remains appropriate. • Integrate SRM into the WHMP for annual review. Reports from the data trending, metrics results, and hazard risk ranking efforts, as well as the Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score from the WHaMRAT could be included in the WHMP as an appendix, a separate document, or as a presentation for the WHMP annual review. The additional documentation could provide resources for risk-based decision making and discussion, and aid in prioritization of mitigation activities, funding, and assignments for the following year. • Consider changes in programs, outcomes, and mitigations for continuous improvements based on the information collected and analyzed. 4.3 Safety Assurance It is important to note that SRM and Safety Assurance work together. The SRM process provides a system analysis, the identification of hazards, and the analysis and assessment of safety risk. As a result, safety risk controls are developed and, once they are determined to be practicable in reducing safety risk to an acceptable level, these con- trols are employed operationally. Safety Assurance is used to ensure that safety risk control strategies are in place, assess whether they are achieving their intended safety risk reduction objectives, and monitor for unintended consequences. If the controls are not adequately reducing safety risk, they are modified and/ or additional safety risk controls are developed through SRM (FAA 2012a). Safety Assurance is a set of processes used to monitor the organization’s performance in meeting its current safety standards and objectives, and to contribute to continuous safety improvement. Safety Assurance essentially serves as a “check and balance” to ensure that the SMS processes, proce- dures, and risk mitigation strategies are having their intended effect. Safety Assurance ensures that

The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management 21 the program goals are managed, measured, and continuously improved as the program evolves. It allows management to verify and validate that the SMS is operating as designed and is actually improving safety. Also included in Safety Assurance is the method by which data will be collected, re-identified if necessary, and reported within the organization. Similarly, wildlife hazards and associated controls and mitigations are assessed annually through WHMP reviews and updates. The primary task of Safety Assurance is control, achieved through safety performance moni- toring and measurement (the process by which the safety performance of the organization is verified in comparison with the Safety Policy and approved safety objectives). Safety Assurance control is exercised by monitoring and measuring the outcomes of activities that operational personnel must engage in for the delivery of services by the organization. Thus, a process of permanent examination, analysis, and assessment of these controls must continue throughout the daily operation of the system. The Safety Assurance process mirrors that of quality assur- ance, with requirements for analysis, documentation, auditing, and management reviews of the effectiveness of the safety risk controls. The organization’s WHMP provides long-term, species- specific or attractant-specific measures, with prioritized target completion dates based on a WHA, WHSV, or ongoing wildlife data collection and analysis. The foundation for the Safety Assurance component of the SMS exists in the airport’s current WHM program. A core SMS concept is continuous improvement. Safety Assurance provides the tools for the SMS to accomplish continuous improvement by (1) ensuring adherence to all measures implemented, (2) reviewing and evaluating all actions taken to assess how well they produce the desired effects, and (3) monitoring the impact of business activities on safety to help determine where the organization’s efforts should best be directed. Safety Assurance differs from SRM because the focus of Safety Assurance is to improve the performance of the SMS itself, rather than the individual hazards and their associated risks. Safety Assurance Applied to Wildlife Hazard Management The data and information collected through the SRM are critical to ensure that the SMS and WHM program meet identified targets and goals. To leverage the additional effort undertaken in the SRM process to fully realize its benefits and to evaluate the successes and improvement opportunities of the SMS, it is necessary to identify and measure each WHM control or miti- gation initiative against specific goals. The SMS goals should be derived from the objectives published in the organization’s Safety Policy Statement, thereby closing the audit loop. The WHaMRAT can be used to assist with development of baseline risk values that can be incorpo- rated in the periodic and annual wildlife review. Documenting the ongoing successes or chal- lenges associated with wildlife controls or mitigations should provide a more accurate guide to what works the most effectively at the airport. Assessing Metrics • Link wildlife hazard risk scores to metrics and performance indicators identified in the Safety Policy. • Measure performance of wildlife mitigations and wildlife management controls against docu- mented wildlife hazards. Count and trend bird strike and other wildlife data and determine if mitigations result in fewer strikes or strikes clustered in different areas of the airport. Ensure that enough detail is provided to improve effective mitigation measures. The Assurance Process • Integrate a formal process to assess changes in WHM and effectiveness using the WHaMRAT as a baseline. • Measure changes as needed and include them in the annual WHMP review.

22 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management Continuous Improvements • Assess whether wildlife mitigations, wildlife monitoring, or WHM practices are improving safety goals documented in the Safety Policy. • Make corrections to the program and reassess whether these changes are improving the wild- life hazard condition. 4.4 Safety Promotion Safety Promotion includes processes and procedures used to create an environment in which safety objectives can be achieved. Key elements of Safety Promotion are training and communi- cation. Communication can take multiple forms, such as posters, meetings, alerts, safety fairs, and safety exhibits. Within the SMS, the objective of Safety Promotion is to improve the safety culture of the entire organization. Thus, as part of Safety Promotion, communication must reflect management’s actions to maintain a safety culture that creates trust and thereby improves operations. Building a strong safety culture requires key organizational activities that promote a high level of risk awareness on the part of the employees, along with a sense of personal respon- sibility for reducing risk. Senior management commitment and demonstrated leadership in promoting safety are essential ingredients in the enhancement of a strong safety culture (Ayers et al. 2009). Because each airport’s culture is unique, airport management at the top levels should work to establish the appropriate safety culture. This means making a commitment to safety, enforcing a policy of non-retribution against anyone who submits incident, accident, or hazard data, retrain- ing without penalty or stigma when safety is compromised, and promoting a positive attitude toward safety and individual responsibility at all levels of the organization. The processes and procedures specified in the Safety Policy, SRM, and Safety Assurance com- ponents are the structural building blocks of the SMS. However, the organization must also establish processes and procedures that allow for communication among operational personnel and with the organization’s management. Organizations must make every effort to communi- cate their objectives, as well as the current status of the organization’s activities and significant events. Likewise, organizations must supply a means of upward communication in an environ- ment of openness. Safety Promotion Applied to Wildlife Hazard Management Collaboration, communication, and shared knowledge, beliefs, and values are critical to the SMS and WHM programs. The foundation of a Safety Promotion program is the means to com- municate safety information, ensure understanding of core SMS components, and encourage participation and collaboration from the airport stakeholder community. SMS Safety Promo- tion consists of three distinct elements that could be applied to WHM: training, promotional materials/outreach, and safety culture. Training • With the implementation of a formal SRM process for WHM, key staff would benefit from formal training in risk-based assessment and documentation as described in FAA AC 150/ 5200-36A, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologist Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards on Airports (FAA 2012b).

The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management 23 • Staff and tenants also would benefit from training on the value of data quality, consistent bird strike and wildlife reporting, monitoring, and management reports. • Training to support promotional campaigns could include briefings at staff meetings and follow-up on bird strike and other wildlife reports. Promotional Materials/Outreach Formal SRM and WHM program promotion can make use of a variety of methods to increase effectiveness, visibility, and participation throughout the entire airport stakeholder community. Outreach options include: • Newsletters, posters, and bulletins regarding wildlife tracking and trending. • Additions to meeting agenda items to discuss wildlife reporting. • Outreach activities such as tenant site visits to describe proper process for wildlife reporting and wildlife observation data collection. Safety Culture • Safety culture and WHM are linked by training and communication to improve reporting and collaboration, and to develop a culture of understanding that wildlife management is important to all stakeholders. • Safety culture is reflected in management’s commitment to implementing controls and miti- gations to manage wildlife more effectively. • Tenants, especially airlines, contribute to the safety culture by training and managing their staff to adhere to and value processes such as removal of wildlife attractants to reduce wildlife threats. 4.5 Safety Management Programs One of the most valuable aspects of a successful SMS is the establishment of an airport hazard condition report or hazard “baseline.” Management’s establishment of the baseline makes it possible to understand the risks associated with existing or emerging hazards. Often, the condi- tion report or baseline is developed as part of a comprehensive hazard assessment in which all aspects of the airport’s operations are investigated for potential hazards or hazardous conditions. Hazards can originate from various data sources, including databases and software systems (as described in the Objectives and Metrics section), terminal inspections, airfield hotspots, accident and incident reports, fire and medical responses, program audits, safety observations, operations logs, foreign object damage (FOD) reports, operational changes, construction projects, database queries for trend reporting, and bird strike and other wildlife reports. Once a baseline collection of hazards, status, and risk rankings has been established, manage- ment can monitor the hazards and risks through identified KPIs. KPIs can be divided into lead- ing and lagging indicators. Lagging indicators focus on data already captured or documented (e.g., number of bird strikes, accidents and incidents, FOD reports, medical runs, etc.). Leading indicators look to the future and focus on change and how it impacts the operation or organiza- tion. Leading indicators provide alerts before a trend occurs or is observed. For example, a lead- ing indicator could be the type and frequency of a specific mitigation that would be documented and managed through program monitoring and oversight. Various mitigation strategies could be deployed simultaneously or sequentially to determine which mitigation provides the most effective outcomes. The results could contribute to program changes and course corrections, and help to prioritize budget items. The value of accurate hazard and mitigation data aids the organization and management in making better risk-based decisions.

24 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management According to the Standardization Workgroup of the Safety Management International Col- laboration Group (SM ICG), “Safety management is becoming the standard for aviation safety worldwide. It is a tool that assists managers to make decisions based on the risks that exist in their organizations or in their environments. Risk management is one of the main components of safety management as it encompasses the assessment and mitigation of safety risks, to which organizations are exposed” (SM ICG 2013). One of FAA’s strategic priority initiatives includes risk-based decision making that strives to “Build on safety management principles to proactively address emerging safety risk by using consistent, data-informed approaches to make smarter, system-level, risk-based decisions” (FAA 2013c). The WHaMRAT provides airport and wildlife management staff with an instrument to assist in developing a baseline for a wildlife hazard and risk assessment. The WHaMRAT supplements manual investigative processes such as compiling and reviewing strike data, habitat management information, depredation and harassment records, and operations reports. The WHaMRAT is intended to serve as a supplemental tool to conduct a hazard assessment and identify the Over- all Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score for the airport. The staff participating in a hazard assessment should consider all aspects of the data and information collected, not merely output from the Example of a Wildlife Leading Indicator and Associated Actions An airport wildlife manager is investigating the use of a variety of new wildlife harassment techniques and equipment, specifically to manage gulls congregating at the end of an active taxiway due to a large multi-phase construction project occurring outside of the perimeter fence. The wildlife manager has observed a steady increase in wildlife activity reports from daily Part 139 inspections. In addi- tion, pilot strike reports associated within the same taxiway area have increased over the last 2 months. 1. The wildlife manager compiles the Part 139 strike reports, assesses whether an increase in air operations has occurred in the area (to determine whether opera- tions may be the source of the increased strike rate), and observes a leading indicator that a rise in gull presence and strikes appears to be occurring. 2. To address the possible increase in strike incidents associated with the gulls, the manager selects three techniques and options to test for effectiveness to determine whether one or more of the techniques will reduce the uptick in strikes in the taxiway area. 3. The manager assigns staff to implement each of the techniques for a 2-week period and monitors reports for gull sightings and strikes. 4. After 6 weeks, the manager compiles the information from each of the tech- niques and observes which technique appears to be the most effective in gull control. 5. The manager implements a standard operating procedure (SOP) to include the new technique until the construction project is completed. 6. After the construction project ends, the manager confirms that the gull pres- ence does not continue in order to confirm that the root cause of the uptick in gull presence was the construction activity. The manager documents the program results and provides a recommendation for future construction that the technique be used as a SOP.

The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management 25 WHaMRAT; however, the WHaMRAT can be used to explore various mitigation scenarios to analyze whether current and future proposed mitigations may assist in reducing the Wildlife Risk Score. In many cases, airport management relies solely on manual reports to assess hazards and determine risk scores. The WHaMRAT was developed to facilitate the hazard assessment process and to provide an electronic tool to capture information that can be used on a recurring basis for decision making and trend analysis. Figure 7 demonstrates a typical SRM process depicting an eight-step WHA that includes use of the WHaMRAT. A detailed User Guide describing how to use the WHaMRAT and including information on underlying calculations and assumptions is provided in Appendix C. Step 1. Inputs originate from numerous sources, such as Part 139 inspections and operations logs, operational changes, construction projects, wildlife strikes, and annual WHMP reviews. Each input could trigger a hazard review based on a threshold or requirement established by the SMS or by management. The thresholds would have been identified and set up as part of the SMS, safety, or WHM program, and would be monitored by staff as carefully as possible. If more than a certain number of wildlife strikes are reported within a week, for example, a formal hazard assessment may be initiated. Establishing an electronic data or software system could assist in managing triggers and thresholds. However, a manual process also could be established through development of standard operating procedures that indicate when certain hazard assessment processes would be initiated. Step 2. Depending on the type of wildlife hazard identified and the immediate assess- ment of the hazard, an initial risk rank is determined. The risk rank assists in prioritizing the hazard within the SMS, WHM, or safety program. Staff are provided guidance and instruc- tion to quickly assess the hazard using a risk matrix similar to the example provided in Figure 4. The initial risk rank determines the next steps and the level of effort and response time required to conduct additional investigations, stop affected operations, or initiate immediate mitigations. Step 3. As a means to further understand and manage the wildlife hazard, additional infor- mation may be collected and compiled to accurately assess the hazard and its subsequent risk rank. Additional information might include habitat management records, strike database infor- mation, operations logs, root cause analysis, data trend analysis, research, and so forth. The information gathered also can be used to begin development of specific mitigations depending on the level of urgency established by the initial risk rank and the possible effect of the hazard (i.e., the real or credible harmful outcome that has occurred or can be expected to occur if the hazard persists). Step 4. Depending on the severity or complexity of the event, one or more types of hazard assessments may be conducted. For less complex hazards, a brief review of the findings by the wildlife, operations, or management teams would suffice. For a significant hazard (a hazard initially ranked as moderate [yellow] or high [red]), a formal Safety Risk Management Panel (SRMP) composed of experts and stakeholders may be required to ensure a certain level of technical expertise is applied to the review. The hazard review would take into consideration all information collected and would also document existing controls as a means to understand whether these controls are adequate to manage the hazard and its possible effect. Step 5. The assessment would yield a risk ranking of each hazard; the risk rankings would then guide the mitigation choices. For example a hazard ranked as low risk (green) may not result in a new mitigation effort; but the hazard, risk ranking, and any supporting information would be retained for trending or as a means to address similar events in the future. For hazards

Part 139 Inspections Landside or Terminal Inspections Accident/incident Hazard(s) Hazard(s) Hazard(s) Hazard(s) • Habitat Management • Depredation Records • Harassment Records • Strike Database • Part 139 Inspections • Operations Logs • WHaMRAT Final Risk Ranking (use risk matrix) • Severity • Likelihood Initial Risk Ranking (low, moderate, high) Mitigations or Corrective Actions Monitoring Schedule and Assignments Close Hazards Continuous Monitoring and Adjustments • Formal assessment of collected information • Additional file notes • Supplemental research, analysis, or investigations • WHaMRAT Results • Automated Queries • Triggers • Thresholds • Trends • Metrics • Key Performance Indicators • Strike Database Data Queries Hazard Self- Assessments/ Audits Hazard(s) Wildlife Strike Investigation or additional inspection information gathered including, but not limited to, the WHaMRAT. Wildlife Hazard Assessment Hazard(s) Annual Wildlife Plan Review Hazard(s) Various activities result in hazard identification. In this example blue are wildlife related. A manual process results where all information is assessed by Subject Matter Experts. An Initial Risk Ranking is assigned for prioritization. A final risk rank is assigned using ALL the information collected, not limited to the WHaMRAT. Proposed mitigations (including use of the WHaMRAT to test mitigation scenarios) are developed with monitoring for continuous improvement objectives. Some hazards can be closed if they are completely resolved; however, in wildlife management, most hazards will remain open and assessed on recurring basis. Data from various sources can be mined for additional hazard identification. The WHaMRAT can be used to trend and identify hazards as well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Source: BASH Inc. Figure 7. Using SRM and the WHaMRAT for a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA).

The Safety Management System and Wildlife Hazard Management 27 ranked moderate (yellow) or high (red) risk, a formal mitigation and monitoring plan would be implemented and tracked. Note that the risk ranking that results from the WHaMRAT is an Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score, thus, for individual species or guild hazard assessments, a separate, manual process would need to be performed. Steps 6 and 7. Mitigation and monitoring may include one or more actions, tasks, correc- tions, modifications, or controls. A mitigation plan could include staff assignments, frequency of monitoring, mitigation results review, and recording of possible new hazards originating from the implemented mitigation. If the mitigation is associated with a project (e.g., a construction project that results in increased wildlife activities), the mitigation would typically end with the project close-out. If the mitigation is part of an operational change or ongoing WHM, it may be tracked for a longer duration and less frequently or as part of the annual WHMP review. A “lessons learned” aspect of mitigation challenges and successes also could be of value for future projects and operational changes. For example, staff could research previous mitigations for valuable information to avoid repeating the development or use of solutions or mitigations that were unsuccessful. The WHaMRAT can assist wildlife and management staff to test various miti- gation scenarios using the Habitat Mitigation worksheets described in Chapter 6. The Habitat Mitigation worksheets allow for current and future mitigation options and provide a risk result associated with the added, revised, or additional mitigations. Step 8. Continuous improvement opportunities could be captured and documented by assessing existing data and information, including identified hazards, controls, mitigations, and results from the WHaMRAT. The process could be integrated into recurring WHM, SMS, or safety program reviews, assessments, or audits. This activity would allow for both proactive and reactive data analysis and allow for ongoing improvements to the program. New or addi- tional hazards may result from the review, thus providing opportunities to continually add safety improvements to the WHM, SMS, or safety program.

Next: Chapter 5 - Introduction to the Wildlife Hazard Management Risk Assessment Tool (WHaMRAT) »
Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 145: Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management introduces and guides the application of a risk-based approach to wildlife hazard management (WHM) programs and outlines additional steps for integrating programs into an airport’s Safety Management System (SMS).

This report also provides a customizable tool, which is available as a CD-ROM. The tool includes:

  • A summary of existing database wildlife hazard descriptions
  • Numerical values for hazard severity and likelihood by species, derived from the FAA Wildlife Strike Database
  • An electronic or manual risk analysis template, which includes the incorporation of variables on or off the airport

The CD-ROM is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image. Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large file and may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

CD-ROM Disclaimer - This software is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively "TRB") be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!