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.
SUMMARY SAFETY REPORTING SYSTEMS AT AIRPORTS In aviation, certain levels of safety and safe operations are expected in the air, on runways and taxiways, and at the gates. A comprehensive network of technologies, systems, and controls, such as regulations, standards, training, and qualified staff, ensure safety is maintained. The collection, analysis, and reporting of data provide management with the ability to monitor existing operations, forecast possible risks, identify and understand safety trends, and improve operational and functional tasks within the complex aviation industry. The objective of this synthesis study is to describe safety reporting methods and systems for air- ports certificated under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 139 (Part 139) by assessing current practices, processes, and systems used to collect and analyze safety data and information. Airport types participating in the study included large, medium, small, nonhub, general aviation, and joint civilian/military use airports at various locations throughout the United States. The objective of the study, with regard to airport size and operation, is to provide a comprehensive report for all airports interested in collecting, analyzing, and reporting on safety data and, as possible, highlight specific findings by airport size. The current study includes a literature-based review of various industry, Internet, and publica- tion resources. The study includes a review of aviation, technology, and legal publications, reg- ulatory guidance, and airport examples provided by survey respondents. The core of the study findings is the responses to an interview preparation document composed of 50 questions (see Appendix C) and subsequent airport representative phone interviews. The staffs of 40 airports were contacted by e-mail and 35 interviews were conducted, resulting in a survey response rate of 87%. Interview durations ranged from 30 to 120 minutes, depending on the complexity of the airport and amount of discussion regarding interview questions. The interview information was documented during the phone interview and compiled into an aggregated set of results using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. For the purposes of this study, airport safety data reporting was designated as mandatory or volun- tary. Mandatory reporting was data collection and record keeping required under 14 CFR Part 139; other FAA regulatory compliance data, such as the 5010 airport master record program; employee health and safety reporting requirements; or other relevant county, city, or state reporting programs. Voluntary reporting was data collected through a formal safety management system (SMS) or as a part of any other airport-managed program encouraging voluntary participation and reporting. In particular, the study researched the following three data uses, flows, and functions: ⢠Internal airport use of safety data, such as accident, incident, health and safety, and near misses for activities on the airfield, terminal, and landside (if relevant). ⢠Collective state, regional, or multiairport management sharing and reporting of safety informa- tion for more than one airport system. ⢠External airport safety data reporting to agencies such as FAA and NTSB. These systems were researched to gather information on data reporting means and methods, data analysis and reporting, and follow-up practices and procedures.
2 A summary of findings from the 35 surveyed airport representatives and associated literature review is as follows. I. Internal airport use of safety data ⢠Of the 35 airports surveyed, 60% have established a voluntary reporting program with or without the formal implementation of an SMS. ⢠Multiple means, methods, formats, and processes are used at airports to receive safety con- cerns from all stakeholders, specifically staff and tenants. Although the same infrastructure exists for mandatory and voluntary reporting (phone lines, safety meetings, and the like), volun- tary and mandatory data typically are reported through different systems or software programs. ⢠Paper-based systems are the method most frequently used to collect and report on Part 139 self- inspection data. ⢠Regardless of the size of the airport, software programs are rarely integrated across depart- ments or functions. Manual reconciliation is often required to analyze safety concerns and discern trends. ⢠Airport staff members are skilled at assessment and deployment of safety response based on the type of safety report received. Strong coordination exists among responding departments to resolve safety problems. ⢠Follow-through on safety concerns is infrequently documented in a single repository or pro- gram; multiple silos of safety reports exist in departments such as operations, police, and fire. As a result, airport management has limited holistic understanding of the number, type, and resolution of safety concerns. ⢠Informal methods are most often used to identify mitigations or solutions to safety issues. ⢠Data collected through existing programs can serve as a foundation for future integrated safety- related reporting and management. ⢠The value of data trending and performance measurements goes beyond safety; it contributes to airport managementâs overall business decisions. ⢠Even for airports with formal SMS programs, few have dedicated staff assigned to safety data management and oversight. II. Collective state, regional, or multiairport management sharing and reporting of safety informa- tion ⢠Few airport management staff report outside of the airport to other agencies. Typical chal- lenges include lack of requested data, the need to compile the data manually, and the ability to compile specific data from numerous departments. ⢠Interviewees at state-managed airports indicated that most of their external reporting relates to budget planning and staffing, not safety. ⢠In addition, at state-managed airports respondents said that Part 139 reporting typically resides with each airportâs management oversight, not within a centralized state-managed office. III. External airport safety data reporting to agencies ⢠All airports in the survey report to agencies such as FAA, NTSB, and health and safety orga- nizations such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or equivalent state, county, or city programs. ⢠Many airport interviewees reported that they or their wildlife management teams use the national FAA Wildlife Strike Database to log wildlife strike reports. ⢠Airport representatives surveyed stated that, with regard to outside agencies, they often report to academic and industry agencies, such as universities, and technical or management surveys for ACRP, ACI-NA, and AAAE. The proposed audience for this study is operators of airports with Part 139 certification, airport executives, and others responsible for airport safety. However, although the results gathered in this study are intended for Part 139 airports, the information may be helpful to all airports and the indus- try in developing or obtaining safety reporting solutions that fit particular circumstances and avail- able resources.
