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.
26 This chapter provides suggestions for revised ground safety practices from industry studies addressing processes and pro- cedures, standards, certifications, PPE, management over- sight, and data collection and reporting. Suggestions included increased coordination among airports, airlines, and GSPs through committees, meetings, and champions. A compila- tion of suggestions is presented from two industry resources [Airport Operations Safety Panel (AOSP) and ACI] and a summary is provided to consolidate the findings. INDUSTRY SUGGESTIONS In a 2004 report on the Safety of Airport Operations, Reducing Accidents and Improving Safety on the Ramp by the AOSP, the panel provided a set of recommendations to enhance safety on the ramp. The panel was comprised of industry representatives to âraise industry awareness on the current state of airport operations safetyâ (AOSP 2004). The report states that The aviation industry has entered a period of significant tran- sition. Airlines are making progress in returning to profitability but serious financial hurdles remain. Cost cutting and preser- vation of capital has never been more important. Airlines are actively pursuing a new business model that calls for outsourc- ing non-core businesses. Airport managers are confronted with a new business model that requires active involvement on the ramp. The AOSP panel recommendations included the follow- ing two items for improved safety of ramp operations: 1. Adopt a set of minimum standards for ramp operations, which is championed by airports. According to John Goglia, AOSP panel chairman, âThe model should be that the airport take control and dictate a set of pro- cedures. The common dominator for this issue (stan- dards) is the airport. . . . It is in the airportâs best interest to monitor the activity on the ramp; they have the final liability.â 2. Adopt standardized licensing, training, and certifica- tion for safe vehicle operation on the ramp for ramp operators. Ramp personnel driving tankers, deicing equipment, and push back tugs do not require special permits or certifications as are mandated off of air- port facilities. The panel recommends that airports require equivalent training and certification as do other industries (AOSP 2004). In the 2007 ACI annual survey on Apron Incidents and Accidents, member airports were asked to provide sugges- tions for enhancing safety on aprons. ACI members offered a variety of actions including forming committees, providing training, developing communication and promotion pro- grams, conducting audits, establishing standards, and enforc- ing safety through various means. The following list presents suggestions from the ACI members surveyed in 2007 and reported in 2009. The suggestions are compiled into logical groups such as committees, promotion and training, stan- dards, data management, and operational improvements. Duplications of items are included to demonstrate more than one response from the ACI members surveyed (ACI 2009). Safety Committees ⢠Establish an Apron Safety Committee. ⢠Establish an Apron Safety Committee with representa- tives of the airport community. ⢠Hold safety committee meetings twice a year with the ground handling providerâs representatives, the local airport authorities, and the public authorities. ⢠Hold specific committee meetings whenever necessary. Promotion and Training ⢠Conduct ground safety seminars on a regular basis. ⢠Provide continuous training and monitoring activities in apron areas. ⢠Distribute safety-related information in different lan- guages, or where possible use pictograms. ⢠Hold regular airside safety campaigns. ⢠Identify minimum training standards for airside drivers. ⢠Organize an apron safety week for enhanced awareness. ⢠Prominently display posters on apron safety. ⢠Publish an airport safety bulletin. ⢠Regular training of personnel in apron safety. ⢠Conduct\safety awareness classes. ⢠Display safety slogans; for example, âbe cleverâbe careful,â âtaking off with safetyâ at numerous locations. CHAPTER FIVE TRENDS AND INDUSTRY REPORTS
27 ⢠Provide specific apron safety training for contractors and vendors with apron driving authority. ⢠Provide training on apron rules and regulations for mem- bers of the airport community. Data Management and Reporting ⢠Develop an effective and efficient apron accident and incident reporting system. ⢠Collect, analyze, and review incidents and accident data on a regular basis. ⢠Receive up-to-date information, data, and procedures pertaining to apron safety management by joining the ACI Operational Safety Sub-committee. Operational Improvements ⢠Provide follow me services as and when required. ⢠Undertake daily FOD patrols with a sweeper truck. ⢠Develop a program of regular apron cleaning and air- port community FOD walks. Standards, Policies, Controls, and Audits ⢠Introduce color-coded permit systems for access to spe- cific areas. ⢠Provide daily, weekly, monthly, and annual random auditing of GSE. ⢠Develop policies for apron management and vehicle parking. ⢠Ensure that all airside workers wear high visibility reflective clothing. ⢠Harmonize full-scale airport emergency plan exercise with the apron safety plan. ⢠Have a progressive enforcement policy in place for non- compliance with traffic directives, possibly resulting in permanently taking away driving privileges. ⢠Identify minimum maintenance standards for all airside vehicles. ⢠Introduce wildlife hazard control unit. ⢠Perform regular safety audits of aircraft turnarounds. ⢠Implement a SMS. ⢠Use protective and reflective gear for all airside personnel. ⢠Monitor vehicular movement. ⢠Send warning letters pertaining to careless behavior to the ground handling providerâs representatives. STUDY FINDINGS AND INDUSTRY SUGGESTIONS This section provides an overview of the earlier industry sug- gestions with regard to the study findings and is organized by topics presented in the previous section: (1) Safety Commit- tees, (2) Promotion and Training, (3) Data Management and Reporting, (4) Operational Improvements, and (5) Standards, Policies, Controls, Audits. Safety Committees Research and Survey Findings The 29 airports responding to the synthesis study survey indi- cated that to some degree meetings relating to ramp safety take place with airline and GSP tenants on either a monthly or quarterly basis. Meetings are either coordinated by airports or limited to airlines. Some respondents indicated that issues are resolved at meetings that are not specifically designated as ramp safety meetings (such as station manager meetings) and others reported that safety concerns are addressed as they are identified. A representative of a non hub airport commented that with regard to safety at the airport: The Airport Operations Managers communicate with Air- line Station Managers and Supervisors almost daily about ongoing operations at the airport. Furthermore, if a prob- lem does arise, we simply talk with the Airline Station Man- agers and Supervisors. The Airport is small enough that we maintain open lines of communication between all parties. If irregular activity is noticed, it is communicated and dealt with on the spot. Industry Suggestions According to ACIâs 2007 survey of members regarding improvements to ramp safety, the addition of safety meet- ings was listed a number of times as a potential safety pro- gram enhancement. Safety meetings are a means to discuss concerns and to inform airport and tenants of operational changes or to report on the status of identified hazards and mitigations. OSHAâs Voluntary Protection Program rec- ommends safety meetings as an important aspect of its pro- gram. Airport safety construction programs require safety meetings for contractors. ICAOâs Annex 14 requires safety meetings for aerodromes under the SMS program. Promotion and Training Research and Survey Findings All airlines and GSPs surveyed in this synthesis study provide a variety of training to staff depending on roles and responsi- bilities, including both classroom and on-the-job training ranging in duration from 1 to 3 or more days. Training focuses on carrier operations and is not consistent across providers; however, survey respondents indicated in various
28 comments that training either met or exceeded airline and OSHA requirements. Airports require a range of training and certification requirements based on the type of service (fuel- ing, for example, requires certification). Approximately 60% of the airlines and GSPs surveyed as part of this synthesis study regarding standardized training responded that they would see value in the program as long as the standardization allowed for flexibility to support site-specific differences. Additionally, 85% of airport respondents believe that addi- tional training would benefit airports and tenants alike. Air- lines and GSPs typically require refresher training and audit their training programs. When airports were asked âDoes your airport review tenant safety training programs as part of the lease or license agreement?â 83% responded âNoâ and 17% âYes.â Typical airport oversight of training pro- grams is limited to AOA and AMA driving and various airport comments indicated that airlines and GSPs were accountable and responsible for staff training and that the air- portâs role in advising tenants on their training programs was negligible. Industry Suggestions Both AOSP and ACI suggest that training is an important aspect of ramp safety. Prill (1999) indicated that one-third of ramp operations managers consider inadequate training to be a contributing factor in ramp accidents and is the result of a lack of motivation and knowledge. Chamberlin et al. (1996) suggested that a number of actions could be taken to mitigate accidents such as provide better training of marshallers and wingwalkers to include scenario-based training. Cabrera et al. (1997) reported that company policies toward safety, empha- sis on training or general safety strategies, and risk percep- tion are several of the identified dimensions that promote a safe organizational operating environment. One GA survey respondent commented that each airline or GSP collects and reports internally on trends. Rarely, unless accidents occur between carriers or result in airport facility damage, are accidents and incidents centrally documented by airport management. The FAA, NTSB, and OSHA collect data separately when investigating accidents, incidents, and fatalities and, as reported by the GAO, the lack of data on accidents and incidents limits the industryâs ability to understand inherent risks in ramp operations. Industry Suggestions In the U.S. GAO report on ramp safety, the GAO is recom- mending that the FAA take several measures to enhance runway and ramp safety including âimproving data collec- tion on runway overruns and ramp accidentsâ and that âa lack of complete accident data and standards for ground handling hinders the effort to understand the nature, extent, and cost of accidents and to improve safetyâ (Dillingham 2007). The ability to collect industry data on ramp acci- dents and incidents would require significant collaboration among airlines, GSPs, and airports. Public disclosure of acci- dent and incident data could serve as a deterrent unless the FAA is able to protect the information through legislative measures. Operational Improvements Research and Survey Findings Of the 29 airports surveyed in this synthesis study, 90% responded âYesâ to the question âDoes your airport manage or collaborate with airlines and ground service providers to inspect for FOD on the ramp/apron?â Only 10% of the air- ports surveyed indicated âNo.â General comments included that FOD management by tenants is a lease requirement and that airports conduct movement area FOD walks while ten- ants address FOD on the ramp areas. FOD is traditionally one of the key areas where tenants and airports work together on safety initiatives. Many airports and tenants provide prizes and other incentives for tenants and staff to manage FOD. Industry Suggestions Two suggestions from the ACI membership survey indicated FOD management as a possible operational improvement. Most airports participate in or have oversight of FOD pro- grams both on the ramp and the movement areas. The FAA requires FOD management through Part 121 for airlines and Part 139 for airports; FOD is a shared responsibility that crosses typical airline and airport ramp oversight that allows for coordinated and collaborative joint efforts. The collabo- ration that is present in FOD programs could serve as a model for future training and ramp oversight and safety program management. We had a full-time position for a safety/training person for the 2009/10 Budget, however the city instituted a hiring freeze and we lost the position. So the responsibility had to fall back on someone who already had many hats to wear. We are hoping to try for the position again in the 2011/12 Budget year. We feel that to have an effective safety pro- gram you really need a full time individual. Data Management and Reporting Research and Survey Findings Today, apart from surveys conducted by industry aviation organizations such as ACI, there is no centralized database of accident, incident, or near miss data from which to trend poten- tial hazards and hazardous operations on the ramp. Typically,
29 Standards, Policies, Controls, Audits Research and Survey Findings Most airlines and GSPs conduct internal safety and training audits. Airports rarely conduct tenant audits or inspections unless accidents or incidents occur. Airports typically restrict inspections to the movement area as a requirement of Part 139. When asked if airports conduct safety inspections on the ramp or in the baggage make-up areas, 66% responded âYes,â 24% replied âNo,â and 10% indicated inspections only occur in common use areas. Airport comments included an increase in ramp safety inspections and a non hub airport reported that âOur self inspection program includes operations personnel monitoring the condition of the airfield (including the ramp area) at least once daily. However, no safety specific checklist exists beyond the self inspection checklist.â Airports surveyed were also asked âDoes your airport require an external audit of ground service providers through programs such as the IATA Safety Audit for Ground Opera- tions (ISAGO) or Insurance agencies?â The majority (86%) replied âNo,â with 10% replying âYesâ and 3% indicating âOther,â with the comment that if an audit occurred the respondent was not aware of it. One of the airports commented that the safety inspection was conducted by its insurance company. Industry Suggestions A variety of suggestions from the ACI survey group recom- mended audits, policies, standards, monitoring, and the imple- mentation of SMS as possible ramp improvements for safety. John Goglia, AOSP panel chairman suggests that airports take on the role of ramp management and monitoring. Air- port oversight of the ramp through safety meetings, audits, and inspections provide a centralized coordination point for documenting and reporting on safety issues.