National Academies Press: OpenBook

Safety Reporting Systems at Airports (2014)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection

« Previous: Chapter Two - Existing Part 139 Data Requirements
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Airport Safety Data Collection ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Safety Reporting Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22353.
×
Page 26

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.

17 To gain a better understanding of who within the airport organization submits safety reports, a series of questions was asked to ascertain what divisions, departments, tenants, and stakeholders submit what types of reports and through what methods. The reporting was further categorized into manda- tory and voluntary segments to assess whether compatibilities, similarities, or differences existed. SAFETY DATA REPORTING ENTITIES The following groups or stakeholders were discussed: • Airport departments and staff • Police and fire (including ARFF) • Tenants, airlines, and ground service providers (GSPs) • FBOs and fuelers • FAA departments and staff • Passengers, the flying public, and communities • Pilots • Third parties (such as construction contractors) • Other stakeholders mentioned by the interviewees. Airport Departments and Staff For all airports surveyed, mandatory reporting took place through the various forms of Part 139 com- pliance, health and safety reporting for staff, and various accident and incident claims, including facil- ity and vehicle damage. Multiple routes and formats typically exist for staff to report safety concerns either directly to management or through human relations (HR) or health and safety departments for various state, city, or county health and safety programs similar to the national OSHA reporting pro- gram. Note that “[s]tate and local government workers are excluded from Federal coverage under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the ‘OSH Act’). However, states operating their own state workplace safety and health programs under plans approved by the U.S. Department of Labor cover most private sector workers and are also required to extend their coverage to public sector (state and local government) workers in the state. Section 2 (11) of the OSH Act encourages states to develop and operate their own state OSH programs” (OSHA 2014). Police and Fire (Including ARFF) According to the ACRP Legal Research Digest 7: Airport Governance and Ownership, “There are over 4,000 [NPIAS] airports in the country and most of these airports are owned by governments.” A 2003 survey conducted by ACI-NA concluded that city ownership accounts for 38%, followed by regional airports at 25%, single county at 17%, and multijurisdictional at 9% (Bannard 2013). The various ownership and management of airports include staffing for law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedic response services. Airports managed under city, county, or authorities often provide law enforcement, fire, and EMT services through the governmental organizations, with staff either directly assigned to airport duties chapter three AIRPORT SAFETY DATA COLLECTION

18 or rotated through individual airport assignments (including law enforcement sup- port of TSA) operations. Because of the city- or county-wide dispatch and manage- ment of these services, often separate communication, technology, and data recording and reporting programs are established to manage staff dispatch; incident, fire, and police reports; and citations or tickets. These systems are rarely integrated with airport operations systems, thus resulting in duplicate reports and the need for departments to cross reference information, such as police reports related to accidents and incidents; EMT reports for trips, slips, and falls; and ARFF reports for fire and rescue. As documented in the ACRP Report 13: Integrating Airport Information Systems, “The Air- side division of Operations is responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the aircraft movement area remain in an airworthy and safe condition. . . . The Airside Duty Officer coordinates the joint responses of police, fire, medical, and airfield emergency operations and understands that safety is the most important responsibility. The Airside division also delivers reports to the appropriate agen- cies, files reports in the form of NOTAM, maintains the facility in a safe condition, and closes any unsafe areas” (Stocking et al. 2009). The intent of the survey question “Who or what entities submit reports” relating to fire and police safety data (mandatory and voluntary) was to assess whether airport processes or systems inte- grated dispatch or reporting efforts to more effectively manage safety-related response from mul- tiple departments or divisions. All airport respondents indicated that both fire and police submit mandatory reports as part of their required enforcement and oversight practices. In two cases, law enforcement, ARFF, EMT and operations all reported to a single airport department, thus facili- tating information sharing. Two other airports commented that both operations and ARFF staff reported to a single department; however, the majority (88%) reported that a combination of city, county, or separate airport departments existed to support law enforcement, fire, and EMT services. In most cases (except for shared dispatch), all data tracking systems were separate and data were not shared on a regular basis. At a medium hub airport, dispatch calls include operations, ARFF, and police staff, with coordination occurring immediately for type of response required; police assist operations by securing the scene and coordinating with operations for information collection, reporting, and citations. Most often respondents indicated that data sharing was in support of an accident or incident requiring formal insurance or risk depart- ment claims processing. At one airport, the interviewee reported that State Police refused to share their reports, indicating a lack of airport operations staff jurisdiction for the information and thus requiring duplicate efforts from multiple departments for all incidents and accidents. Tenants, Airlines, and GSPs As described, of the 35 staff interviewed, 60% of the airports employed some type of voluntary report- ing program either through SMS (49%) or other reporting programs (11%). Tenants represent the largest and most comprehensive group of potential voluntary reporting entities at airports. Surveyed airport staff were asked, “Are tenants required to report through any of the following agreements,” which included lease agreements, licenses, rules and regulations, contracts, municipality or city ordi- nances, and other. The most frequently used means to require tenants to report resulted in rules and regulations and lease agreements (see Table 9). Some airport rules and regulations specifically call out safety reporting requirements for FOD, accident and incident reports, and wildlife strikes. Many tenant leases establish 20- or 30-year terms and agreements that are difficult to update or modify. At some airports, rules and regulations serve as the only means to manage tenant safety behaviors, including smoking, speed limits, infractions, citations, and badge removal. At a medium hub airport, the lease language requires tenants to notify the airport if changes are made to the leased ramp area that could affect maintenance. One large hub airport commented that safety reporting has been added to the airport ordinance as a requirement, and another large hub airport stated that tenants are required to follow and comply with the airport’s directives through state Law enforcement and dispatch sys tems are often separate from Part 139 airport operations. Each collects safety data separately. ARFF, EMT, police, and opera- tions all collect safety data, but the data are rarely compiled in the same data base or department. Tenants represent the largest group of voluntary reporting en- tities at airports; rules and regula- tions often call out tenant report- ing requirements.

19 Enforcement Type Lease Agreements Licenses Rules and Regulations Contracts Municipality or City Ordinances Other Respondent count by enforcement type 13 1 16 8 7 4 Respondent percent by enforcement type 37 3 46 23 20 11 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 9 AIRPORT SAFETY REPORTING ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS codes of regulations. A large hub airport respondent mentioned that although the airport rules and regulations specifically call out the tenant requirement to report on all accidents and incidents, few reports are made unless the event is observed and reported by airport staff. Incidents and accidents involving a tenant’s staff are rarely reported unless facility, equipment damage, or injuries occur. A medium hub airport representative with an SMS program under way shared that the airport was in the process of developing and distributing an airline user agreement that would include verbiage to require accident, incident, and hazard reporting from all tenants. FBOs and Fuelers In many cases, FBOs are considered one of the many airport tenants, and in other cases the airport management and staff can serve as the FBO. At many U.S. airports, commercial and GA fueling are provided by a single fueling/FBO service provider. The safety data survey specifically listed FBOs/ fuelers as a separate entity (tenant) to assess whether safety reporting practices were similar for the group and other tenants or if different oversight and reporting were present. One of the key safety oversight responsibilities for airports is the formal fueling inspection required under Part 139. Specifically, the FAA requires “Inspection of fuel farm and mobile fuelers; check[ing] airport files for documentation of their quarterly inspections of the fueling facility; review[ing] certification from each tenant fueling agent about completion of fire safety training” (FAA 2014). Airport staff conducts fueling operations inspections of the FBO/fueler and collects reports for compliance with Part 139 requirements. All airport representatives indicated an FBO/fueler managed fueling or other duties at the airport; all stated that collection of mandatory safety data is accom- plished through inspections. Because of the inspection oversight of the fueling operation, the airport operator has numerous opportunities to review operations and discuss safety concerns, which often leads to a more direct and frequently used communication route with FBO/fuelers regarding safety. FAA Departments and Staff The most frequently cited type of FAA communication at an airport was the interaction between the local air traffic control tower (ATCT) staff and the airport operations team. Most often, such com- munication related to airfield closures, Part 139 inspections, maintenance activities, FOD reports, wildlife sightings, and construction closures. Operations staff typically use radio or phones to com- municate with FAA controllers for immediate communication (radio) or coordination (phone) of taxiway or runway closures. ARFF and the operations department use of crash phones, as docu- mented in the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Communications AC 150/5210-7D, serves as “The initial notification method [alarm, dedicated telephone line (crash phone), two-way non-ATC radio, pager, dispatch service, etc.]” for ARFF response and coordination with ATCT. AC 150/5210-7D also states the “Communication between primary responders and the following: Airport controlling agencies, ATCT (Tower, Ground Control, Approach/Departure Control, [Flight Safety Standards] FSS), and Airport Operations” (FAA 2008). Airport operations staff and FAA ATCT constantly communicate safety-related activities on the air- field, such as closures, FOD, and wildlife. One of the key safety oversight responsibilities for airports is the formal fueling inspection required under Part 139.

20 Passengers, the Flying Public, and Communities Most safety concerns reported from the public were routed through onsite staff (for the most part staff located in the terminal or landside), such as police, customer service agents, custodians, or any badged airport staff. At some airports, interviewees reported that customers can report safety concerns, including those related to all aspects of airport operations, through a public website. One airport representative indicated a safety concern relating to ramp operations was reported through the public website by a person observing a safety infraction (speeding) from a gate area window. In another case, a terminal safety concern was reported using the airport’s courtesy phone and was sub- sequently routed to the police. Interviewees generally commented that many public reports are often related to maintenance repair concerns, not safety issues. Pilots Typically, pilots report safety concerns directly to the air traffic controller (ATC); if such concerns are relevant, they are communicated to airport operations staff by the means described in the FAA departments and staff section. The most frequent types of pilot reports include FOD, wildlife strikes, and weather-related issues, such as surface conditions. They are reported through for- mal Pilot Reports (PIREPS), which are pilot reports of actual weather conditions that are reported by radio to ATC and shared with airport operations staff as needed, such as for runway surface and braking action conditions. At some airports, chief pilots or pilot safety representatives attend airline and airport safety meetings to report pilot-related safety concerns. Most often, critical issues are reported immediately to the ATC and resolved with the appropriate airport operations or maintenance staff. Third Parties (Such as Construction Contractors) Construction on airfields requires a great deal of communication and coordination among multiple departments and functions. Airport operations staff work directly with airside construction managers and the ATCT to ensure airfield closures are communicated through NOTAM. Typically operations, the construction manager, the ATCT staff, and the construction team meet frequently to discuss safety concerns. In addition to construction inspections, airport operations staff conduct safety inspections to assess construction-related safety aspects, as outlined in FAA Part 139. Various items to be inspected include FOD, open trenches airfield lighting and signage, marking and lighting of closed pavement, construction staging areas and stockpiled materials, the marking and lighting of construction areas, construction barricades, and NOTAM. Other Stakeholders Introduced by the Interviewees Most often, communication with the TSA for security coordination and the wildlife management staff for wildlife strikes were reported as “other” airport communication groups. For one airport, outreach to its large GA community was considered a high priority to ensure GA pilots were provided with multiple means to report safety concerns. METHODS TO COLLECT AND ANALYZE INFORMATION Airport interviewees were asked numerous questions for each of the data collection and management steps presented in Figure 4 (A through K). Information was collected to document types of follow-up activities requiring response, investigation, tracking, documentation, and distribution of safety report details focusing on accident and incident investigations, mitigations, and trending. The questions posed to the airport respondents were organized in a progressive manner to docu- ment airport processes and responses to safety reports. Each table (Tables 10 through 20) provides a summary of replies with the top three highest percentages highlighted. Note that Table 10 is a duplicate of Table 6 (as presented in chapter two); the question was intentionally repeated to provide PIREPs are a means for pilots to report surface and weather condi- tions to FAA and subsequently to airport operations for airfield safety management. (text continues on page 24)

21 A Safety report received B/C Methods to analyze or collect additional information D Methods of response to submitter (if any) E Methods to assess risk F Methods to identify mitigation or resolution G Methods to trend and track activities H Identified trends I Methods to report on activities J/K Frequency and audience of reports FIGURE 4 Sequential data collection and management steps relating to safety report processes. Safety Reports Received by Method Software Website Hard Copy Phone E-mail Meetings Verbal Other Count of reports received by method 16 21 17 32 29 30 32 2 Percentage of reports received by method 46 60 49 91 83 86 91 6 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 10 SAFETY REPORTS BY COLLECTION METHOD Means to Collect Additional Information E- mail Phone Inspection Assignment Further Analysis Interview/ Meetings External Validation/ Experts Personal Follow- up Other Count of means to collect additional information 20 19 35 34 29 24 6 27 4 Percentage of means to collect additional information 57 54 100 97 83 69 17 77 11 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 11 DATA COLLECTION—ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COLLECTION METHODS Information Analysis Methods E- mail Phone Inspection Investigation Further Analysis Interview/Meetings Other Respondent count of information analysis methods 15 17 26 30 29 28 3 Respondent percent of information analysis methods 43 49 74 86 83 80 9 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 12 DATA COLLECTION—ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS METHODS

22 Mitigation Solution Identification Methods As Part of SRA Initial Triage/ Response Formal Meeting Management Decision (escalation) Brainstorming Risk Parameters or Thresholds Regulatory or Safety Guidance Individual/ Small Team Decision Other Respondent count of mitigation solution identification methods 20 30 26 19 26 10 33 29 2 Respondent percent of mitigation solution identification methods 57 86 74 54 74 29 94 83 6 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 15 DATA COLLECTION—METHODS USED TO IDENTIFY MITIGATIONS OR SOLUTIONS Safety Tracking Methods Software Website Excel Manual Review Meeting Other Respondent count for safety tracking methods 17 1 8 28 19 2 Respondent percent for safety tracking methods 49 3 23 80 54 6 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 16 DATA COLLECTION—ACTIVITY TRACKING METHODS Response Method to Safety Report Submitter Website Meetings Phone E-mail Face-to-Face Bulletin Board Other Count of response method to submitter 1 16 25 30 25 0 4 Percent of response method to submitter 3 46 71 86 71 0 11 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 13 DATA COLLECTION—SAFETY REPORT SUBMITTER RESPONSE METHODS Risk Analysis Method(s) Initial Triage/ Response Risk Matrix for SRA Risk Guide for SRA Risk Definitions for SRA Formal SRA Formal Meeting (not SRA) Individual/ Small Team Decision Other Respondent count of risk analysis method(s) 34 26 17 25 12 20 30 2 Respondent percent of risk analysis method(s) 97 74a 49a 71a 34 57 86 6 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. aRelates only to formal SRAs as part of SMS or compliance with FAA SRM processes. TABLE 14 DATA COLLECTION—RISK ANALYSIS METHODS

23 Fewer Reports Incomplete Reports More Anonymous Reports Fewer Accidents and Incidents Better Quality Reports More Complete Reports Other Respondent count of trend types 3 1 0 1 6 2 4 Respondent percent of trend types 9 3 0 3 17 6 11 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 17 DATA COLLECTION—TRENDS IDENTIFIED THUS FAR Methods to Present Information Posters Website Bulletin Board Meetings Training Briefings Verbal Reports E- mail Other Respondent count of methods to present information 0 4 1 30 7 10 14 5 Respondent percent of methods to present information 0 11 3 86 23 29 37 14 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 18 DATA COLLECTION—METHODS USED TO PRESENT STATUS AND STATISTICS Frequency of Status Reporting As They Occur or Are Needed Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Biannually Annually Other Respondent count of status report frequency 27 17 10 25 8 2 5 2 Respondent percent of status report frequency 77 49 26 71 26 6 14 6 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 19 DATA COLLECTION—FREQUENCY OF STATUS REPORTS Information Presented to What Audience Staff Tenants Management Community/ Public Regulatory FAA/NTSB Other Respondent count of presented to what audience 32 24 31 3 35 4 Respondent percent of presented to what audience 91 69 89 9 100 11 3 shaded cells = 3 highest percentages. TABLE 20 DATA COLLECTION—STATUS AND STATISTICS PRESENTED, BY AUDIENCE

24 a start-to-finish series of questions. As noted previously, most safety reports are received by phone, meetings, and verbally through an airport representative. Many of the airport staff interviewed indi- cated a dedicated phone line exists with qualified staff that receive and triage calls for dispatch of relevant staff, such as police, fire, operations, maintenance, or a combination of staff as required by the type of report. As noted in Table 11, airports apply various methods to collect additional information. The most frequently reported method for collecting additional information was through investigative or follow-up inspections or assessments. Investigations were typically followed by assignment (assign- ing a staff to assess the investigative report for appropriate actions or response), further analysis such as collecting additional information (often accomplished by dispatch staff receiving the initial call), and an appropriate level of response. Most respondents indicated that the type of response depended on the criticality of the safety concern reported. For more immediate safety concerns, such as accidents, resources are deployed (police, operations, ARFF, security), and in some cases, citations or accident reports are docu- mented, including photos and, as needed, witness reports. Some airport interviewees reported that, when serious accidents or incidents result in fatalities or airfield closures, numerous alerts are initi- ated to groups such as maintenance, operations, police, fire, ATC, and subsequently FAA or NTSB, as needed. Airport representatives were asked to provide information on what methods are typically used to analyze or review additional information after the initial safety concern is reported. The top three responses, as presented in Table 12, include investigation, further analysis, and interview/meetings. For citations or rules and regulation infractions, additional information could be collected by review- ing the staff or tenant history of infractions, pulling or restricting badge access, meeting with the staff or tenant manager, and conducting a formal review of the noncompliant activity through a committee or safety forum. Later in the assessment process, the risk or legal departments may be included to address insurance or legal claims. Airport respondents all said that providing status updates regarding the reported safety concern is an important aspect to “close the loop” for continued safety reporting protocols and general safety culture. If the report was received through an anonymous route, it was unlikely that the resolution of the safety concern was (or could have been) communicated. At one airport, the SMS communication plan originally included the concept of providing safety updates on a public bulletin board; however, the airport’s legal department considered this a potential liability, and the approach was not imple- mented. Another airport said that all anonymous reports are presented and discussed by airport staff and tenant representatives at the monthly safety meeting. When the submitter of a safety concern is known, other options, such as e-mail, phone, or face- to-face communication, were reported (see Table 13) as the most effective means for communicat- ing resolution or status. One airport with an electronic reporting program indicated that the safety concerns are logged and all airport staff can review the status of the resolution and report to tenants. Many airport representatives indicated that e-mail provided a record of the date and type of safety concern for quality assurance purposes and to serve as tracking for future correspondence or identi- fication of recurring problems (which typically relied on a manual review process). Responses to risk analysis methods were divided into two groups: (1) airports that use a formal safety risk assessment (SRA) process as part of their SMS program or procedures relating to the FAA’s safety risk management (SRM) processes, and (2) those that have not implemented the use of SRAs. Thus, two sets of responses were tracked for the single question. As presented in Table 14, most airport respondents without a formal SRA program used the initial report of the safety concern as a means to analyze or categorize the potential risk from the safety concern or report, followed by small teams or individuals empowered with decision-making author- ity appropriate for the level of required response. Finally, if a complicated safety concern required multiple subject matter experts for the analysis, a formal meeting was convened.

25 For airports with formal SRA processes in place, 74% used a formal SRA risk matrix to assess risk, 71% assessed risk definitions (or thresholds), and 49% used a documented risk procedure to aid in formal risk analysis. Most respondents indicated a facilitator typically led the SRA, thus preclud- ing the need for a documented risk procedure. One airport interviewee stated that “most people know how to identify a problem but not a hazard and were able to work out resolutions to solve the problem. The chal- lenge is changing the language and adapting to a more formal process that requires a different level of documentation.” Another respondent indicated the airport used a combination of formal and informal processes depending on the level of complexity necessitated by the individual safety concern. For example, a formal SRA is being used for a Part 139 airfield safety enhancement study. A free Excel tool located at www. Thinkreliability.com was mentioned as helping to formalize root cause analyses. To further assess how airport staff identified mitigations or solutions to the safety concern or safety report, the response most often reported (94%) was regulatory or safety guidance. As reported in chap- ter one, the FAA has a wealth of safety guidance materials within advisory circulars. However, many airport respondents indicated that mitigations, solutions, or resolutions were typically determined during the initial phone, e-mail, or verbal receipt of the safety concern by dispatch, operations, fire, police, or maintenance staff. As illustrated in Table 15, when immediate response is not sufficient to resolve safety issues, 83% of the respondents reported that a small team gathers to assess options and provide relevant subject matter expertise. Another aspect relating to mitigations or solutions introduced by several interviewees (more than half) was funding or budgets. In some cases, funding approvals require management approval. Similarly, budget processes typically require additional analysis and justification; and one respondent reported that an internal SRA was being conducted to formalize the safety risks and concerns to support the funding request for mitigation. Most airport staff interviewed reported that representatives from each department (operations, maintenance, police, fire, etc.) collect and conduct manual reviews of information to track and trend data (see Table 16). Meeting notes, airport operation logs, paper records, e-mails, incident reports, and maintenance work orders were among the types of information most often assessed to track safety activities. Airport representatives with software systems reported that they were beginning to use their programs to log, track, trend, and report on safety activities, but in some cases, use of the system required entering the data from other reporting programs or manually reconciling reports from multiple systems for safety reporting. More than half of the responses indicated meetings were a means to track safety activities. As presented in Table 7, 13 respondents reported use of SMS software, 17 reported Part 139 software, and 23 indicated use of maintenance software. Table 16 suggests that only a portion of the SMS, Part 139, and maintenance software programs are being used for safety tracking. Asked whether any safety reporting trends had been observed thus far, most respondents reported that this information was difficult to ascertain, largely because no or little formal tracking of safety reporting had been conducted. A few airports with SMS programs observed a small decline in volun- tary safety reports (see Table 17), citing that this may be the result of decreased promotional activities following program launch and noting a likely need to continually promote the program and its use. In some cases, airport representatives commented that better attention to detail on internal reports was noticeable, and staff understood the value of consistent reporting and were making an effort to improve quality of the reports. One airport representative reported that with the initial rollout of the web-based reporting portal, the airport received a number of nonsafety-related concerns but with follow-up and additional training, all recent reports were safety related. A GA airport respondent reported that “more informative reports are being submitted, better quality reports, including more appropriate types of reports for hazard reporting such as concerns that need to be addressed. The program is working because multiple reports of the same concern are being submitted; this is likely due to a greater awareness for hazards and the promotional campaigns Using formal safety terminology, such as hazard, risk, and mitigation, may require staff training and orien- tation for better understanding and collaboration. Quality of safety reports improves with staff training and consistent use of the reporting system.

26 we are using to inform everyone.” A non-hub airport representative indicated that the airport staff are in the process of standardizing information collection, including photos of or detailed descrip- tion of slips, trips, and falls for insurance claims, which is improving overall quality and the value of the reports. Most respondents (86%) indicated that meetings were the most often used format for presenting status and statistics of safety reports (see Table 18). Either through standing safety meetings or informal exchanges, meetings constitute an easy and effi- cient way to communicate safety information. One airport representative mentioned that staff was in the process of building a safety dashboard for management review, but while the program was being developed, safety meetings were used to cover the topics. Health and safety or OSHA statistics often were reported as being formally communicated to staff and management through monthly e-mails. Other airport interviewees shared that their staff discuss safety concerns on a daily basis. These data-sharing discussions often are part of the airport’s daily staff or shift meetings for operations and maintenance staff. At a medium hub airport, the safety meeting includes both staff and tenants for general safety items. A separate meeting is held by airport managers to review airport staff topics related to health and safety. In some cases, a verbal report provided directly to the individual who had called in the safety concern was considered the most efficient means for discussing status and presenting the mitigation or corrective action. With regard to the frequency of safety reporting (see Table 19), most airport interviewees (77%) responded that providing status of a safety concern was fundamentally part of their operations daily routine. In addition to shift notes, staff ensured open safety problems were well documented either as part of a formal software program (most reported using a work order tracking program to update the status of open safety items or discrepancies) or through inspection logs, reports, or face-to-face shift meetings. As frequently described in responses, safety meetings (which typically occur on a monthly basis) provide a key forum for formal safety reporting. Daily, weekly, and monthly operations and mainte- nance meetings, including health and safety reporting, were listed most often as the forum for staff safety reporting and communication. Management either participated at these meetings or served as the means for escalating resolu- tions to safety concerns, especially when solutions required budget or funding approvals. Although tenants received safety reports at monthly safety meetings, the public or community was rarely informed of specific safety reports. An interviewee said the public is interested in noise concerns, which typically are handled through the public relations office or noise department. As described in chapter one, airports certificated under Part 139 collect inspection and other types of data, which are made available on request to the FAA (see Table 20). Staff and management ranked next with 89% and 91% reporting, respectively. Meetings are the most used means to report safety concerns, status, and statistics to staff and tenants.

Next: Chapter Four - Staff Responsibilities and Functions »
Safety Reporting Systems at Airports Get This Book
×
 Safety Reporting Systems at Airports
Buy Paperback | $49.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 58: Safety Reporting Systems at Airports describes safety reporting methods and systems for airports certificated under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 139 by assessing current practices, processes, and systems used to collect and analyze safety data and information.

READ FREE ONLINE

  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!