Airport Safety Risk Management Panel Activities and Outcomes (2016)

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.

52 This chapter consolidates information on support materials and tools currently used by airports and consultants to plan, facilitate, and report SRAs. Some important tools are described, and examples or actual templates that can be immediately used by airports are available in the appendices. SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT TRIGGERS SRA triggers are changes or events that can have safety impacts on airport operations and may require airports to convene a SRM panel to conduct an assessment. It is important to note that convening panels to run SRAs is not appropriate for time-critical safety issues requiring immediate actions. The SRA process can take many hours and days and should only be used for deliberate safety issues involving multiple stakeholders, when time is not a critical factor to safety. According to FAA Order 5200.11 (2010), “SRM panels are an effective tool for providing a thorough examination of hazards and risk associated with any proposal. However, they are labor-intensive and should be used judiciously, on the most safety-critical decisions.” As mentioned earlier, most hazards and safety issues that airports face routinely will not require convening SRM panels with a facilitator. Table 17 presents typical triggers used for SRAs. RISK MITIGATION ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS One important part of the SRA process is defining which risk mitigation actions will be established, who will be responsible for implementing them, and when they will be implemented. As described earlier, many risk controls are already in place, but in certain situations it will be necessary to reduce risks further with additional actions. During the SRA process, representatives of airport functions and other airport stakeholders will agree on which actions and how the actions will be implemented, but some general principles can be followed. When analyzing options for risk controls, it is important to bear in mind that each alternative may have a different potential for reducing risks. The panel assesses how effective the option is before a decision is made to use it. In addition, the panel evaluates the feasibility, costs, and practicality of imple- menting a specific control. Different perspectives for the decision-making process are shown in Table 18. Evaluation of these perspectives is not a formal part of the SRA process; however SRM panel participants may use these options when suggesting or approving risk mitigation actions. Table 19 presents the categories of risk mitigation alternatives available, and Table 20 shows options to con- trol risks. Two types of risk mitigation actions are identified during the brainstorming process: • Existing controls—The first type is the existing mitigation actions; these are used to assess the risk for the existing conditions. These controls are not to be implemented because they are assumed to be already in place. In this risk control category, airport procedures, FAA advisory circulars, and Part 139 Regulations are frequently identified by the panel. For example, airfield inspections are mandatory under the Part 139 Regulations, and it represents an action to control chapter seven SUPPORT MATERIALS AND TOOLS FOR AIRPORT-LED SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENTS

53 TABLE 17 TYPICAL TRIGGERS FOR SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENTS Source Organization SRA and SA Triggers Part 139 Airports Airside construction Formulation of airfield improvements Special events Accidents and incidents New standard operating procedure Introduction of new aircraft class Other defined in the airport’s SMS manual Foreign Airports Major safety issue identified (e.g., frequent bird strikes) Airfield developments or changes Changes to operating procedures Implementation of new airfield system Changes to airport manual Changes to air traffic procedures or systems Deviations from airfield standards Activities that may impact aircraft operations Other defined in the airport’s SMS manual ACRP Report 131 See Appendix M. Source: Survey and interviews. TABLE 18 EVALUATING RISK MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES Consideration Description Effectiveness to reduce risk How much risk reduction in qualitative or quantitative terms can be achieved with the option? Cost Does risk reduction outweigh the level of costs involved with the implementation? Practicality Are there resources available in terms of technology, and manpower? Is it feasible to implement, and is it in compliance with regulations? Acceptability Will stakeholders buy-in the alternative selected? Enforceability Can the risk control action be enforced, if necessary? Durability Are the safety benefits temporary or permanent? New risks Are we creating new risks when implementing the alternative? Source: ICAO Doc 9859 (2013). Alternative Description Example Avoid the risk Eliminate exposure to risk by avoiding the task or operation because it is too dangerous. Close parallel taxiway to larger aircraft if separation is not compliant with standards. Reduce the risk Reduce risk likelihood, consequence or both. Improve runway friction to reduce the risk of runway excursions; perform job at night, when volume of operations is low. Transfer or share the risk Advise stakeholders of risks so they can take actions from their side. NOTAM for safety awareness of construction activities near movement areas. Refer the risk Pass information about the risk to higher management levels. Actions that require costs beyond the panel decision-making level. Retain the risk Accept the risk level achieved with or without new risk mitigation actions. The rate of bird strikes is relatively low compared to other airports, and the airport will keep monitoring trends. Source: NZ CAA (2013). TABLE 19 RISK MITIGATION CATEGORIES

54 FOD during routine operations. Daily inspections are also used to monitor FOD generated by construction activities. Possibly the airport has an internal procedure to increase the frequency of inspections in construction areas. Some of these actions are cited in the SRA as existing but may not be present when and where required, and therefore it is necessary to ensure the existing mitigation actions are in place. • Additional controls—The second type of risk mitigation action is additional measures to further reduce risks. These are the actions that, during the SRA brainstorming process, the panel will assign responsibilities for implementation. The most common type of safety issue that requires an SRA is airfield construction, and an alternative is to incorporate the implementation of actions under the responsibility of the CSPP. However, as mentioned earlier, it is common to have responsibilities assigned to airport functions and even to the airport tower or other stake- holders which are not part of the CSPP. Many airports face questions on how to ensure that risk mitigation actions derived from an SRA will be put in place in a timely manner; this was a key challenge identified during the survey for this report. After the SRA is completed, risk controls are defined and responsibilities assigned; however, most Part 139 airports believe that the process of tracking control actions and making sure these actions will be in place when needed is not effective and could be improved. There are many alternatives available to make this safety assurance process more effective. A series of options based on the literature review are listed in Table 21. Individual techniques or a combination can be used, and selection will depend on the airport characteristics and level of SMS implementation. Many foreign airports with mature SMS use risk registers to track the implementation of risk controls. A typical risk register table is presented in Appendix N. A software solution (spreadsheet, database, or SMS application) may be required, particularly for larger airports, to facilitate sorting and monitoring control of numerous risks identified in the SRM processes. For smaller airports and a limited number of monitored risks, an electronic spreadsheet may suffice. The risk register should include a reference code that identifies the project, project phase or safety issue, and the specific hazard and risk. It is important that screening all risk controls for a given proj- ect be part of the risk register capabilities. One or more control actions are assigned to a responsible party, and information on the status of implementation and due date for completion can be monitored in the risk register. Type Example Engineer Limit speed, use rumble strips, and wash construction truck tires to avoid generation of FOD. Guard Use fences to prevent access to movement areas. Improve design Reduce number of taxiways in intersection. Limit exposure Avoid construction works during low visibility (Surface Movement Guidance & Control System) conditions. Selection of personnel Use experienced staff to access movement areas. Training Provide airside driver training to construction drivers. Warn-signs and briefings Offer daily briefings to construction workers for safety awareness. Motivate Oversee risks with performance measures and introduce award program. Reduce effects Ensure availability of personal protective equipment, emergency response plans. Rehabilitate controls Repaint faded markings. Source: Adapted from U.S. Air Force (2007). TABLE 20 OPTIONS TO REDUCE RISKS

55 Another practical alternative is to use checklists that airfield inspectors use to oversee risk control actions associated with a project or change phase and location. Although it is usually assumed that control actions included in CSPPs and FAA advisory circulars are active, a customized inspection checklist ensures that recommendations and further actions decided during the SRA process will be in place. An example inspection checklist associated with a SRA is presented in Appendix C. The most effective way to ensure that both existing and additional mitigation actions will be in place is to develop a plan for implementation and to monitor the actions in a risk register developed by the airport and managed by the SMS coordinator or airport staff responsible for coordinating airside safety issues. Appendix O presents a template provided by Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta Inter- national Airport to develop an action plan for risk control actions. Technique Description Plan to implement and track risk mitigation actions Develop a summary or plan of risk mitigation actions with responsibilities and due dates for implementation, and submit it to responsible parties. The plan is based on mitigations defined during the SRM panel session and can be incorporated to the SRA Report. List of risk control actions for incorporating to the CSPP Based on the actions defined in the SRA, prepare and submit a list of risk control actions under the responsibility of the construction contractor for inclusion in the CSPP. Risk register Develop an airport risk register containing basic information about the risks and risk controls defined. The risk register is used to track resolution of actions and make appropriate changes to risk level based on the revised residual risk. Inspection checklists Create inspection checklists describing the procedures and actions that should be in place for each project phase, area, and activity. The checklists are used by airport staff performing daily inspections of the sites. Safety working group Create a safety working group for the project with the intent of convening periodic meetings to discuss project progress, project changes and impacts to risk assessment, status and resolution of risk control actions, identification of new hazards, and occurrence of incidents. Safety performance indicators Create safety performance indicators to monitor effectiveness of risk control measures. Assign coordinator to manage risk control plan Assign a responsible coordinator to track timely completion and implementation of risk mitigation actions. Source: ASM Consultants. TABLE 21 TOOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR SAFETY ASSURANCE OF RISK MITIGATION ACTIONS