Airport Self-Inspection Practices (2011)

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.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2011 www.TRB.org A I R P O R T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M ACRP SYNTHESIS 27 Research Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration SUBSCRIBER CATEGORIES Aviation • Maintenance and Preservation Airport Self-Inspection Practices A Synthesis of Airport Practice CONSULTANT C. DANIEL PRATHER Prather Airport Solutions, Inc. Murfreesboro, Tennessee

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transportation of people and goods and in regional, national, and international commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation sys- tem connects with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common oper- ating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principle means by which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. It is modeled after the success- ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Program. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subject areas, includ- ing design, construction, maintenance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, and administration. The ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can cooperatively address common operational problems. The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant indus- try organizations such as the Airports Council International–North America (ACI-NA), the American Association of Airport Execu- tives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and the Air Transport Association (ATA) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local govern- ment officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organizations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited period- ically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners. ACRP SYNTHESIS 27 Project 11-03, Topic S06-02 ISSN 1935-9187 ISBN 978-0-309-14347-9 Library of Congress Control Number 2011931175 © 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Per- mission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in the document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledg- ment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Coop- erative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Coun- cil. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessar- ily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Trans- portation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of The National Academies, the National Research Council, and the Federal Aviation Administration (spon- sor of the ACRP) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or man- ufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essen- tial to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting. Published reports of the AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyís purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

ACRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 11-03 CHAIR JULIE KENFIELD Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. MEMBERS RANDALL P. BURDETTE Virginia Department of Aviation KEVIN C. DOLLIOLE Union Consulting, Inc. LINDA HOWARD Bastrop, Texas ARLYN PURCELL Port Authority of New York and New Jersey BURR STEWART Seattle, Washington FAA LIAISON PAUL DEVOTI ACI–NORTH AMERICA LIAISON A.J. MULDOON AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION JOHN L. COLLINS TRB LIAISON CHRISTINE GERENCHER COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs MICHAEL R. SALAMONE, Senior Program Officer JOSEPH J. BROWN-SNELL, Program Associate EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications ACRP SYNTHESIS STAFF STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate TOPIC PANEL PAUL KHERA, Alaska DOT and Public Facilities, Juneau KEVIN KLEIN, Cherry Capital Airport, Traverse City, MI CASEY LYONS, Gulfport–Biloxi Regional Airport Authority DOUGLAS MANSEL, Port of Oakland, Oakland, CA JOHN OSTROM, Metropolitan Airports Commission– Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport PAM PHILLIPS, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Teterboro, NJ ALVIN STUART, Salt Lake City International Airport SETH B. YOUNG, Department of Aviation, College of Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH BRUCE LANDRY, Federal Aviation Administration (Liaison) RICHARD MARCHI, Airports Council International–North America (Liaison) Cover photo: Operations personnel examine a taxiway edge light during a daily self-inspection. Used with permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under the ACRP Project S06-02 by Prather Airport Solutions, Inc. Dr. C. Daniel Prather, Principal, was the Project Director and Principal Investigator. Research assistants participating in the project were Mr. Michael Smalley, Mr. Brian Clifton, Ms. Jennifer Johnston, and Mr. Matthew Romero.

Airport administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor- mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac- tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire airport community, the Airport Cooperative Research Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing project. This project, ACRP Project 11-03, “Synthesis of Information Related to Airport Prac- tices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an ACRP report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. FOREWORD Airport self-inspections, which are required at airports certificated under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 139 (Part 139), allow an airport to ensure regulatory compliance on a daily basis and are seen by the FAA as the cornerstone to the airport oper- ator’s overall safety program. Although not required by Part 139, noncertificated airports typically have in place some degree of a self-inspection program. This practice is encouraged by the FAA and enables an airport to ensure safety of the airfield and compliance with var- ious standards. Generally, all airports, whether or not certificated under Part 139, use this regulation as a baseline for a self-inspection program. For the purposes of this synthesis, a comprehensive self-inspection program includes the components of training; inspecting; reporting discrepancies and findings; follow-up, resolution, and close-out; and quality control. The report provides insight into common airport self-inspection practices and may be useful to airports in benchmarking their self- inspection program to peer airports and practices considered successful by regional FAA personnel. C. Daniel Prather, Prather Airport Solutions, Inc., Murfreesboro, Tennessee, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge avail- able at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand. PREFACE By Gail R. Staba Senior Program Officer Transportation Research Board

CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background, 5 Self-Inspection Program Overview, 5 FAA Regulatory Requirements, 5 FAA Guidance, 7 Additional Guidance, 7 Training of Inspection Personnel, 7 Scope of Study, 8 Study Methodology, 8 Participants, 8 Report Organization, 11 12 CHAPTER TWO TRAINING Part 139.303, 12 Part 139.327, 14 Initial Training, 15 Recurrent Training, 15 Training Design, 15 In-House Training, 16 Outsourced Training, 16 Current Airport Training Practices, 17 20 CHAPTER THREE INSPECTING Inspection Personnel, 20 Frequencies of Inspection, 20 Self-Inspection Tools, 20 Conducting the Inspection, 23 Inspection Records, 31 Current Airport Inspection Practices, 31 35 CHAPTER FOUR REPORTING DISCREPANCIES AND FINDINGS Nature of the Discrepancy, 35 Reporting Methods, 35 Order of Priority, 36 Current Airport Reporting Practices, 36 38 CHAPTER FIVE FOLLOW-UP AND CLOSE-OUT Follow-Up, 38 Close-Out, 38 Current Airport Follow-Up and Close-Out Practices, 39

41 CHAPTER SIX QUALITY CONTROL Human Factors, 41 Continual Improvement, 42 Quality Control in the Industry, 42 Current Airport Quality Control Practices, 43 45 CHAPTER SEVEN OVERSIGHT FAA Oversight, 45 State Oversight, 47 51 CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSION Training, 51 Inspecting, 51 Reporting Discrepancies and Findings, 51 Follow-Up, Resolution, and Close-Out, 51 Quality Control, 51 Oversight, 52 Further Research, 52 53 ACRONYMS 54 REFERENCES 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY 56 APPENDIX A PARTICIPATING AIRPORTS 57 APPENDIX B PARTICIPATING FAA REGIONS 58 APPENDIX C PARTICIPATING STATE AVIATION AGENCIES 59 APPENDIX D AIRPORT SURVEY OF SELF-INSPECTION PRACTICES & TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE 72 APPENDIX E SURVEY OF FAA CERTIFICATION INSPECTION PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE 76 APPENDIX F AIRPORT OVERSIGHT BY STATE AVIATION AGENCIES SURVEY 83 APPENDIX G OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES BY AIRPORTS 93 APPENDIX H OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES BY FAA CERTIFICATION INSPECTORS 96 APPENDIX I SELF-INSPECTION CHECKLIST (COURTESY OF ST. CLOUD REGIONAL AIRPORT)

97 APPENDIX J SELF-INSPECTION CHECKLIST (COURTESY OF DANE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT) 98 APPENDIX K FIELD CONDITION REPORT (COURTESY OF DANE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT) 99 APPENDIX L SAMPLE WORK ORDER FORM (COURTESY OF CHERRY CAPITAL AIRPORT) 100 APPENDIX M AIRPORT SAFETY SELF-INSPECTION FLYER (COURTESY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DOT) 101 APPENDIX N EXCERPT FROM AC 150/5200-18C