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.
Follow-up and close-out are critical components of any self- inspection program. Among some certificated airports, this is an area that has commonly resulted in a discrepancy finding during an annual Part 139 inspection. By properly following up with appropriate personnel after having reported any dis- crepancies, as well as closing out discrepancies once they have been corrected, airports are able to close the loop on items of concern. FOLLOW-UP To ensure that work has been completed, a follow-up process is typically adopted by airports. Once the work has been com- pleted, it is beneficial to report this to the individual who ini- tiated the request. In this way, the issue can be closed out, including canceling any NOTAM(s), reopening pavement, or simply verifying that the work has been completed satisfac- torily. Without the closing of the feedback loop, inspection personnel may lose track of work that needs to be completed and items previously reported may be reported again, thus generating duplicate work requests. Various methods are available to airports for following up with appropriate personnel to ensure that a reported discrepancy is resolved. Rather than requiring inspection personnel to follow up with maintenance personnel to deter- mine whether or not an issue has been closed out, airports typically develop a procedure whereby those resolving the discrepancy (i.e., maintenance personnel) communicate this to inspection personnel. At airports with a paper-based work order system, this may be communicated via phone call, radio call, or e-mail, or face-to-face. In other words, once an issue has been resolved by maintenance personnel, contact is made with inspection personnel noting that fact. At airports with electronic work order systems, maintenance personnel (possibly through Work Control) close out a work order in the system. Typically, a confirmation of this is e-mailed to the individual reporting the issue to enable confirmation of close-out. This system may or may not be accessible to operations personnel. Although it remains the responsibility of inspection per- sonnel to make certain that reported discrepancies are resolved, in many cases the individual reporting the discrepancy may not be the same individual who actually works to resolve the discrepancy. For instance, in the event of a broken taxi- 38 way direction sign, the problem may have been discovered by an individual in operations who was performing an inspec- tion, who then reported the broken sign to the operations supervisor, who then reported the problem to maintenance work control, who then reported it to a maintenance employee, who then deemed that a new sign must be ordered. After this process has taken place, it is important for operations person- nel to check in with work control, which must then check in with the maintenance employee, who must then check in with the sign manufacturer or supplier to ensure that a new sign is on its way, as well as determine the estimated delivery and installation date. Additionally, it is beneficial for airport personnel to con- sider the degree to which airport operations may be affected by the discrepancy. For example, if a glideslope is inoperative, lights are inoperative, or signs are out of service, a NOTAM may be justified so that pilots are aware of these discrepancies before they depart or arrive at the airport, allowing sufficient time to plan ahead for the degraded equipment. Further, air- port operations personnel may need to schedule the closure of pavement to allow maintenance personnel proper time to resolve a discrepancy. CLOSE-OUT The final step of the inspection process is to close out any discrepancies that have been resolved. Without this step, there is no closure to any reported discrepancies. The actual process of closing out a discrepancy varies among airports, but occurs in much the same manner as the follow-up stage. During the course of following up, the individual may find that the situation has been addressed and sufficient verifi- cation exists to prove that fact, thus allowing the issue to be closed out. As part of the close-out process, documen- tation of the resolution is generally made so that the open item is no longer considered active. This may involve clos- ing out an open work order and canceling any NOTAMs associated with the item. A documentation process can be rather simple, including a description of the discrepancy; the individual discovering it; the date, location, and manner in which it was resolved; and the name of the individual closing out the discrepancy. This type of documentation can be beneficial to an airport, as it allows for review of the types of discrepancies most frequently addressed, as well as the corrective measures most effective at remedying each CHAPTER FIVE FOLLOW-UP AND CLOSE-OUT
39 issue. If discrepancies are not documented in some fashion after they have been resolved, one never knows which dis- crepancies are no longer a concern without inspecting the areas again. At the very least, it is important that an effort be made to close out each discrepancy to confirm that the situation has been handled in a satisfactory manner, thus allowing normal operations to resume. With the October 7, 2010 issuance of the Notice of Pro- posed Rulemaking, Safety Management System for Certifi- cated Airports, sufficient documentation of resolved discrep- ancies became even more important for certificated airports. Self-inspections are part of the audit process required under the Safety Assurance component of the Safety Management System, and by properly documenting inspections as well as discrepancies as they are discovered, reported, and resolved, airports will properly support the audit process. With proper documentation, trends can be analyzed and airports can identify, for instance, areas of increasing hazards, such as a construction site that becomes a prolific generator of FOD or an area where unauthorized engine runs are being conducted, resulting in soil erosion from jet blast. It should be noted that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would require certifi- cated airports to implement the Safety Management System throughout the airport environment, including both move- ment and non-movement areas. Thus, airports focusing on documenting and reporting discrepancies in movement areas would need to ensure a focus on non-movement areas as well (Safety Management System 2010). CURRENT AIRPORT FOLLOW-UP AND CLOSE-OUT PRACTICES When queried as to the methods used to follow up on discrep- ancies and ensure their resolution, airport responses were var- ied. As seen in Figure 42, the use of an electronic work order system is quite common, but participating airports also rely on a paper work order system and maintenance brief- ings, as well as confirmations through e-mail and tele- phone, and face-to-face. Large-hub airports tend to utilize an electronic work order system (91%), with 64% also utiliz- ing e-mail confirmation. All medium-hub airports utilize an electronic work order system, with 50% also utilizing e-mail confirmation. Small-hub, non-hub, and GA airports tend to rely on a paper work order system, with maintenance briefings as appropriate. âStories from the Fieldâ At GulfportâBiloxi International Airport, discrepancies discovered during a self-inspection are noted on a paper and on an electronic checklist, with discrepancies entered into an electronic work order system, which produces a corresponding work order number. If the discrepancy is an immediate hazard to aviation safety, appropriate action is taken by airport operations personnel. For example, a NOTAM may be issued, an area may be closed, and airport maintenance will be immediately notified to correct the issue. Operations personnel regularly monitor all Part 139-related work orders in the system. Once work is completed, work orders are closed out by maintenance personnel, with infor- mation such as completion date and specific work performed. At this point, the work order moves from the âopenâ work order list to a âclosedâ work order list. If a work order will not be closed out in a reasonable time, airport maintenance personnel will update the work order and include notes, such as parts on back order, that work will be completed during scheduled runway closure, and so forth. Source: C. Lyons, GulfportâBiloxi International Airport. 66% 50% 50% 44% 41% 34% Electronic work order system E-mail confirmation Face-to-face Maintenance briefings Paper work order system Phone call confirmation FIGURE 42 Methods for follow-up of discrepancies. Note: Participants were able to select all that apply; thus, percentages do not total 100%.
When presented with an open-ended question asking the manner in which items reported on the self-inspection are properly closed out, participating airports typically answered in one of two ways (Appendix G). First, if the airport has an electronic work order system, the individual could either log onto this system to determine if an item has been closed out or, in some cases, the system would generate an automatic e-mail to the individual reporting the issue. Second, if the airport has a paper work order system, the maintenance department could be contacted to verify that an item has been closed out or the 40 individual may receive a copy of the paper work order noting that the item had been closed out. Airports also commonly visually verify previously noted discrepancies to ensure that the work was completed to standards. Delving deeper into this topic, participating airports were also queried to determine at what point an issue is considered closed out. The majority responded by saying that an issue is considered closed-out once work has been completed according to Part 139 standards. Visual verification of this is often performed by operations personnel to verify work completed by maintenance personnel.
