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.

41 An integral component of any successful self-inspection pro- gram is a focus on quality control. Perhaps second in impor- tance only to training, an effective quality control component will ensure the continued success of a self-inspection pro- gram, preventing complacency from negatively impacting airport safety. Indeed, just as in the business world, quality control is seen as extremely vital to the success of a com- pany. Likewise, quality control is an important issue in the aviation industry, and specifically to airport self-inspection programs. Although technology in its various forms has greatly enhanced aviation safety, the human component con- tinues to be a weak link in the system, and without a focus on quality control, that link continues to degrade. Because per- sonnel are involved with airport self-inspection programs, a focus on the human component is important. HUMAN FACTORS With humans responsible for conducting airport self- inspections and managing the overall airport self-inspection program, the human component is ever-present. With this in mind, airports are confronted with various human factors. Considering these human factors and developing methods to minimize any negative consequences associated with them are important components to any airport self-inspection program. As noted in AC 150/5200-18C, complacency is one such human factor (FAA 2004). Among airports participating in this synthesis, complacency among personnel was recognized as having the most significant impact on self-inspection pro- grams. Particularly for personnel conducting self-inspections, this task consumes a significant amount of time and is carried out daily, often several times each day. As such, the process of conducting a regular self-inspection can become rather repetitive in a short time. Inspections after accidents or inci- dents, as well as other special inspections, can generate ex- citement for inspection personnel because they do not occur frequently and they have a level of urgency or importance associated with them. Even so, the vast majority of inspec- tions conducted at airports are performed daily with a focus on the same items each time. Thus, methods to mitigate the effects of complacency are important. Management oversight, in the form of audits on those performing self-inspections, is one such method. Audits allow management not only to ensure that inspection personnel are performing their job cor- rectly, but also demonstrate to personnel the desire of man- agement to hold the work of inspection personnel to a high standard. Airports may also address complacency with job rotation, training, and the use of varied inspection patterns (FAA 2004). Yet another human factor is fatigue. In the 24/7 environ- ment of an airport, fatigue can be quite common among personnel working nonstandard hours. Rotating shifts, night shifts, quick turns, and other anomalies of the airport work environment can often lead to reduced sleep and fatigue, thus negatively impacting alertness levels. With lower levels of alertness, inspection personnel may overlook issues that would have been discovered had fatigue not been an issue. Although this unique attribute of the airport environment may be unavoidable, efforts can be made to minimize quick turns and rotation among shifts. Further, some individuals are more inclined to work night-shift hours, and airports might take this into consideration when assigning shifts. Addi- tionally, the negative consequences of a 24/7 environment may be reduced through adequate time off and flexible schedules (Krause 2003). Although likely not as prevalent, a “macho” attitude exhibited by personnel is yet another human factor to be con- sidered. This characteristic may arise in personnel greatly experienced in performing inspections or may simply be an attribute of a new employee. In either case, this human factor requires that management remain perceptive of personnel exhibiting this characteristic. Once the trait is detected, man- agement may wish to emphasize (1) the ever-present possi- bility for runway incursions, overlooked FOD, or Part 139 issues; (2) the need for personnel to always pay attention to detail; and (3) the benefits of altering the inspection routine. Likewise, personnel may exhibit characteristics at the other end of the spectrum, namely, a lack of confidence. This can result in incomplete self-inspections, as well as the inad- equate reporting of discrepancies and the action necessary to resolve them. Typically more common with inexperienced personnel, a lack of confidence can be addressed by adequate training, job shadowing, and positive feedback to personnel (Krause 2003). In addition to the human factors of complacency, fatigue, macho attitude, and lack of confidence, the loss of situational awareness (SA) can, at one time or another, affect all inspec- tion personnel. Although an emphasis on maintaining SA is CHAPTER SIX QUALITY CONTROL

an important component of pilot training, airports may not place an emphasis on SA in self-inspection training. It may be assumed that inspection personnel, once trained, will be able to maintain proper SA. However, SA during self-inspections can be degraded in low-visibility conditions, with the use of radio or cell phone, and with distracting passengers, among other conditions. Owing to the various ways in which SA can be negatively affected, airports may find it challenging to confront this issue adequately. However, by developing a formal self-inspection program with proper procedures and ensuring that personnel are aware of the conditions that might cause loss of SA, airports can effectively mitigate the loss of SA among self-inspection personnel (Krause 2003). Regardless of which human factors are affecting self- inspection personnel, it is beneficial to address these factors in training self-inspection personnel, both initially and recur- rently. Likewise, promotion and awareness programs may be used to educate personnel on various human factor issues, common issues faced by personnel, and methods to mitigate the negative consequences associated with human factors. Whether developed by management or borrowed from peer airports or the FAA, these programs may prove vital to an airport in maintaining a successful self-inspection program. Additionally, employee turnover can be another factor in addressing human factor issues. New personnel may receive conflicting messages if they observe more experienced per- sonnel being complacent in performing their self-inspection duties, especially if the complacent employee is not corrected by a supervisor. Therefore, airports are encouraged to consider both of these factors and attempt to always have a mixture of new and experienced personnel, as well as have methods in place for terminating employees who consistently turn in a lackluster performance. In sum, the responsibility for addressing human factor issues and working to negate them rests with the airport oper- ator. Thus, it is beneficial for airports to develop a plan to combat the human factor issues presented in this chapter, educate their personnel on the topic, and provide motivation for personnel to avoid falling victim to human factor issues that can negatively impact the safety of the airport. By stress- ing the potential liability faced by inspection personnel if duties are neglected and a discrepancy is overlooked, and by emphasizing the FAA requirement for self-inspections, air- ports are able to highlight the importance of a proper self- inspection. Regardless of the methods used, it is beneficial for airports to remain keenly aware of the human factor issues that can affect a self-inspection program, and to create a plan to educate personnel to avoid falling victim to these factors. CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT The area of human factors is not the only area that affects quality control of an airport self-inspection program. Many airports have adopted a continual-improvement mind-set that 42 guides everything they do, including their self-inspection pro- gram. For example, the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Author- ity has adopted the Six Sigma process improvement methodol- ogy as the cornerstone of its continual improvement activities. By building a culture of continual improvement and business excellence, the Authority has thus far improved maintenance work order flow, valet parking, tenant implementations, and contract compliance (“MNAA Champions Six Sigma” 2006). Clearly, this continual improvement mind-set could be implemented to improve an airport’s self-inspection pro- gram. An airport with a similar approach is Boston–Logan International, operated by the Massachusetts Port Author- ity. With a collaborative approach to improving airfield safety, the airport has developed “Tiger Teams” with repre- sentatives from the Massachusetts Port Authority, airlines, the FAA, and industry experts. These teams have developed an action plan that established long- and short-term goals for improving airfield safety at Boston–Logan. According to the airport, many of the initiatives the airport has under- taken in the last few years are a direct result of that effort (Richards 2009). A more specific approach to continual improvement of a self-inspection program involves a “mock” Part 139 inspec- tion. With this method, an airport invites personnel from a peer airport to visit and carry out a mock Part 139 inspection. By gaining insight from peers and a fresh set of eyes, an air- port can improve its self-inspection program. Yet another option involves visiting peer airports to learn about their self-inspection program. From training to inspecting, docu- menting findings and close-out, airports are often willing to share their practices for the benefit of another airport. As one airport-respondent stated, “There is significant benefit to peer learning.” QUALITY CONTROL IN THE INDUSTRY Although quality control (QC) efforts among airports are the highlight of this chapter, QC efforts are also in use through- out the aviation industry. One such effort is the FAA-approved Operational Safety Audit Program of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). This program is internationally recognized and designed to “assess the operational manage- ment and control systems of an airline” (IATA 2011, para. 1). As explained by IATA, airlines and regulators achieve the fol- lowing benefits: • Reduction of costs and audit resource requirements for airlines and regulators; • Continuous updating of standards to reflect regulatory revisions and the evolution of best practices within the industry; • A quality audit program under the continuing steward- ship of IATA; • Accredited audit organizations with formally trained and qualified auditors;

43 • Accredited training organizations with structured audi- tor training courses; • A structured audit methodology, including standardized checklists; • Elimination of audit redundancy through mutual accep- tance of audit reports; and • Development of auditor training courses for the airline industry (IATA 2011, para. 2). Although a similar system of external audit could be applied to airport self-inspection programs other than the annual Part 139 inspections by the FAA (or state aviation agencies in the case of non-certificated airports), this is not currently the case. CURRENT AIRPORT QUALITY CONTROL PRACTICES Quality control of an airport’s self-inspection program in- volves addressing human factors and conveying the impor- tance of the self-inspection program to personnel. As part of this synthesis, participating airports were queried on these two QC components. Importance of Inspections First, participating airports were asked which reasons they use to convey the importance of inspections to inspection person- nel. When presented with several choices, participating air- ports were most likely (90%) to stress the FAA requirement of conducting self-inspections. A high number also stressed the potential for aircraft accidents (87%) and the potential liability of improperly conducting inspections (84%). Only 58% of air- ports stressed the potential for penalties to airport personnel. A common theme in the “Other” category was the need for per- sonnel to take pride in their airport. Factors with a Negative Impact As part of the synthesis, participating airports were asked about the degree to which various factors negatively impact self-inspection personnel and their ability to carry out the air- port’s self-inspection program. As seen in Figure 43, the fol- lowing factors have some to little impact on self-inspection personnel: complacency, fatigue, noise or distractions, lack of awareness, inadequate time to carry out inspection, and overconfidence. However, the majority of participat- ing airports believed that inadequate training and lack of confidence have no impact on their self-inspection person- nel and their ability to carry out the airport’s self-inspection program. Interestingly, complacency is the only factor that has significant impact at more than 15% of participating airports. Methods to Minimize Complacency In response to this finding on complacency, airports were asked specifically what methods they use to minimize complacency among personnel conducting self-inspections. Figure 44 pre- sents the most common methods. Among all hub sizes (except GA), training and management oversight are relied on most commonly. However, at participating GA airports, audits and requiring varying inspection routes are the only methods relied on to minimize complacency. Methods to Ensure Quality Control Participating airports were also queried as to how they ensure QC in the self-inspection process (including training, inspect- ing, and documenting). Although responses varied among air- ports, several themes were identified by respondents (Appen- dix G). The most common theme identified was management oversight. Whether this took the form of management review of completed daily self-inspection forms, an occasional ride- along on an airfield inspection, regular audits, or simply an overall awareness of an employee’s abilities, involvement by management is key in ensuring QC at many airports. Another common theme centered on training. These airports believe that with proper training (both initial and recurrent), a certain degree of QC can be ensured. Additional themes include peer review, shift debriefing, proper documentation, and personnel FIGURE 43 Factors negatively impacting self-inspection personnel. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Complacency Fatigue Noise/Distractions Inadequate training Lack of awareness Lacking confidence Inadequate time to… Overconfidence No impact Little impact Some impact Significant impact

taking ownership in the process. One participant explained efforts to ensure QC as follows: [We ensure quality control] by conducting weekly/monthly audits to ensure nothing falls through the cracks or is overlooked 44 or omitted. The airside 139-qualified officers are also given indi- vidual “ownership” responsibilities pertaining to sections of 139. These individuals will coordinate with Airside Supervisors and the Manager to ensure inspection follow-up and closure is com- pleted, the training program is up-to-date and documentation is 139-compliant 365/24-7. 81% 78% 47% 44% 9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Training Management oversight Audits Require varying inspection routes Promotion/Awareness programs FIGURE 44 Methods to minimize complacency. Note: Participants were able to select all that apply; thus, percentages do not total 100%.