Lightning-Warning Systems for Use by Airports (2008)

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.

25 Introduction The science of lightning and technologies that detect light- ning events were briefly reviewed in Chapter 1. This chapter describes how airport and airline management uses those technologies to control ramp activities and afford a safer working environment when lighting occurs at the airport. Survey candidates were jointly identified by the project panel and the MDA Federal team. the candidates included several air- ports that have installed lightning detection and warning sys- tems to support their operations, as well as several airlines. The airports surveyed included • Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, NC (CLT), • Chicago-O’Hare International Airport, IL (ORD), • Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport, TX (DFW), • Denver International Airport, CO (DEN), • Orlando International Airport, FL (MCO), • Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport, AZ (PHX), • Pittsburgh International Airport, PA (PIT), and • Tampa International Airport, FL (TPA) The following four airlines were also surveyed: • American Airlines (AA), • Northwest Airlines (NW), • United Airlines (UA), and • United Parcel Service (UPS). Survey Results In general, the airports and airlines were questioned with respect to • Type of lightning detection and warning system equipment installed; • Complementary weather data support systems; • Defined threat and risk alert levels; • Means of alerting airport staff and operators on aircraft ramps to lightning events (airport surveys); • Means of alerting airline staff and other airport ramp op- erators to lightning events (airline surveys); • Deficiencies in lightning detection systems and associated warning procedures; • Effectiveness of the equipment, threat and risk levels, and notification process; and • Applicability of standardization to lightning detection and warning system procedures. For comparative purposes, the input obtained from each airport and airline is grouped by query item. The responses reflect the use of certain types of equipment to monitor light- ning threats and the variety in how that data are interpreted and used to control ramp operations. In general, lightning detection systems convey information to users through computer monitor displays, as illustrated in Chapter 1. These systems apply algorithms to advise users as to the potential for, or the actual existence of, a lightning event; the warnings are conveyed to field crews and personnel in a number of ways, as summarized in the following sections. Lightning Detection Equipment Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT) Vaisala Precision Lightning Weather System (PLWS), a predecessor of the TWX1200 (Vaisala Thunderstorm Warn- ing System 1200) with NLDN feed and two electric field mills (EFM). Chicago-O’Hare International Airport (ORD) No airport-owned or provided equipment. Users rely on self-installed equipment. C H A P T E R 2 Airport and Airline Surveys

Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport (DFW) No airport-owned or provided equipment. Users rely on self-installed equipment. Denver International Airport (DEN) No airport-owned or provided equipment. Users rely on self-installed equipment. Orlando International Airport (MCO) Vaisala TWX1200 with NLDN feed and two EFMs. This sys- tem is referred to locally as “ForeWarn II,” which is the brand name used by ARINC when it sells and installs the Vaisala product. MCO is planning to add a third EFM and use its local area network to transmit alarms to remote alarm display (RAD) units. Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) Vaisala TWX300 with NLDN feed and two EFMs. Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) Vaisala PLWS with NLDN feed and two EFMs. System to be upgraded to TWX300. Tampa International Airport (TPA) Vaisala PLWS with NLDN feed and two EFMs. System to be upgraded to TWX300. American Airlines—DFW Only Vaisala TWX300 with NLDN and two EFMs. Northwest Airlines—Systemwide (eight airports) DTN/Meteorologix Aviation WX Sentry and one EFM. United Airlines—ORD Only Vaisala TWX1200 with NLDN feed and two EFMs. System to be upgraded to Vaisala TWX300. United Parcel Service—Louisville, KY, Only UPS has operations at about 100 airports. Two airports (main hubs)—at Rockford, IL, and Louisville, KY—have their own lightning detection systems. Approximately 12 airports have lighting information provided by the airport authority or other airlines. At Louisville, UPS utilizes the WSI Weather Workstation, which provides weather radar observations, weather maps and forecasts, and NLDN real-time cloud-to-ground light- ning observations that are monitored 24/7 at the ramp operations center. The system automatically generates a pre-alert, fuel ban alert, and operations alert at the center with visual cues when lightning is detected within the pre- defined ranges. UPS is considering switching to the TOA System’s USPLN in the expectation of faster throughput of observations, lower costs, and possible improved warnings through the USPLN’s reports of within-cloud lightning strikes, in addition to cloud- to-ground strikes. Complementary Weather Data Support Systems Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT) Weather radar feed. Chicago-O’Hare International Airport (ORD) Uses outside contractor and media reports. Has access to weather radar feed. Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport (DFW) Utilizes an outside contractor for weather forecasts and warnings. Denver International Airport (DEN) “Borrows” observations taken by a weather observer stationed in the Ramp B tower and retained by another party. Also subscribes to the Weather Support for Deicing Decision-Making (WSSDM) provided by Vaisala in con- junction with the National Center for Atmospheric Re- search (NCAR). The WSSDM system includes lightning observations from the NLDN, but the lightning data path is not secure and is not intended for lightning safety applications. Orlando International Airport (MCO) No airport-owned or provided equipment. Users rely on self-installed equipment. Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) No airport-owned or provided equipment. Users rely on self-installed equipment. 26

Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) Weather radar display from Meteorlogix. Tampa International Airport (TPA) Satellite weather radar antenna. American Airlines—DFW Only Has access to American Airlines Meteorology Department at headquarters, but relies on Vaisala TWX1200 system. Northwest Airlines—Systemwide (eight airports) Internet with Google map overlay. Surface radar and visual observations. United Airlines—ORD Only Has access to data collected at the nearby off-airport United Airlines Operations Center, including real-time radar observations, satellite imagery, and forecasts. United Parcel Service—Louisville, KY, Only Has access to weather data and forecasts at their on-airport airline operations center. Defined Threat and Risk Alert Levels The majority of users of lightning detection systems employ visual warning cues to signal lightning events and a course of action with respect to ramp activities. Because of the range of activity centers at an airport, users may opt to equip management/operations centers with RAD systems that readily convey the required course of action based on the data input received and evaluated at the central loca- tion. Visual displays typically use color-coded signal lights to convey whether no lightning is anticipated or being monitored, the potential for termination of ramp activities, or ramp closure. The colors green, yellow, red, as well as combinations of those colors, are well suited to convey the required course of action with respect to ramp activity. An example of a RAD system is shown in Figure 17. Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT) Utilizes the light signals automatically presented by the Vaisala TWX1200 based on customized software, as follows: • Green indicates EFMs do not exceed alarm thresholds and no lightning within 12 mi, or no EFM alarm and no light- ning in past 5 min. • Green/yellow indicates one EFM at alarm threshold, or lightning strike within 12 mi. • Yellow indicates two EFMs at alarm threshold, or lightning strike within 12 mi and one EFM at alarm threshold, or lightning strike within 6 mi. • Yellow/red indicates two EFMs at alarm threshold and a lightning strike within 12 mi, or lightning strike within 8 mi and one EFM at alarm threshold. • Red indicates lightning strike within 3 mi, or a lightning strike within 8 mi and two EFMs at alarm threshold. The light signals are intended to convey current condi- tions for thunderstorms and potential for lightning strikes as follows: • Green indicates no activity that will affect local operations. • Green/yellow indicates conditions favor thunderstorms, or one or more storms are nearby and are active or forming. • Yellow indicates activity is close and will influence, or may have already affected, operations. • Yellow/red indicates activity is close enough that a red light can be anticipated within 5 to 10 min, or storm is just be- ginning to display less influence. • Red indicates storm is having a direct impact on opera- tions. An interruption can normally be anticipated. Chicago-O’Hare International Airport (ORD) None. May rely on observed action of airlines. Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport (DFW) None. Denver International Airport (DEN) DEN Communications Center issues • Lightning advisory when lightning is observed 10 mi out, • Lightning warning when lightning is observed 5 mi out, and • Lightning “secure” when no lightning is observed within a 5-mi radius for 15 min. 27 Figure 17. RAD system manufactured by Vaisala.

Orlando International Airport (MCO) Utilizes the light signals automatically presented by the Vaisala TWX1200 based on customized software, as follows: • Green indicates EFMs do not exceed alarm thresholds and no lightning within 6 mi. • Green/yellow indicates one EFM at alarm threshold, or lightning strike within 6 mi. • Yellow indicates two EFMs at alarm threshold, or lightning strike within 6 mi and one EFM at alarm threshold, or lightning strike within 4 mi. • Yellow/red indicates two EFMs at alarm threshold and a lightning strike within 6 mi, or lightning strike within 4 mi and one EFM at alarm threshold. • Red indicates lightning strike within 2.5 mi, or a lightning strike within 4 mi and two EFMs at alarm threshold. Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) Utilizes the light signals automatically presented by the Vaisala TWX1200 based on customized software, as follows: • Green/green on both monitors indicates lightning at least 17 mi distant, • Green/yellow on one or both monitors indicates lightning within 17 mi, and • Yellow/red on one or both monitors indicates lightning within 5 mi. Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) Utilizes the light signals automatically presented by the Vaisala TWX1200 based on customized software, as follows: • Green indicates no lightning within 17 mi, and no EFM alarm threshold reached. • Green/yellow indicates lightning within 17 mi but greater than 12.5 mi, or one EFM at alarm threshold. • Yellow indicates lightning within 17 mi but not within 12.5 mi and one EFM at alarm threshold, or two EFMs at alarm threshold and no lightning strike within 17 mi, or lightning strike within 12.5 mi but not within 5 mi and no EFM at alarm threshold. • Yellow/red indicates lightning within 12.5 mi but not within 5 mi and one EFM at alarm threshold. • Red indicates lightning strike within 5 mi, or lightning within 12.5 mi but not within 5 mi and two EFMs at alarm threshold. After a 10-min delay, system moves to the next appropriate threat level. Tampa International Airport (TPA) Utilizes the light signals automatically presented by the Vaisala TWX1200 based on customized software, as follows: • Green indicates no cloud-to-ground lightning within 18 mi, and no EFM alarm threshold reached. • Green/yellow indicates lightning within 18 mi. • Yellow indicates lightning within 18 mi and one EFM at alarm threshold, or lightning strike within 4.8 mi. • Yellow/red indicates lightning within 18 mi and two EFMs at alarm threshold, or lightning within 4.8 mi and one EFM at alarm threshold. • Red indicates lightning strike within 3.1 mi, or lightning within 4.8 mi and two EFMs at alarm threshold. • After a 5-min delay and no change, system moves to next lower threat level. American Airlines—DFW Only American Airlines Safety Department, with input from labor unions, uses the following standards: • If a lightning strike is within 5 mi, use hand signals on the ramp; • If a lightning strike is within 3 mi, shut down all ramp op- erations; and • Minimum time to restart ramp activity is 10 min without a lightning strike within 3 mi. Northwest Airlines—Systemwide (eight airports) Northwest uses the following standards: • If a lightning strike is within 5 mi, stop fueling and cease all headset communications; • If a lightning strike is within 3 mi, cease ramp operations; and • Ramp activities can be restarted only when there have been no lightning strikes within past 10-15 min (using judgment). The 5-mi and 3-mi limits are those recommended by the Air Transport Association and the International Air Transport As- sociation. The impact on ramp activities associated with these standards was determined with input from the labor unions. United Airlines—ORD Only The following standards were set with input from United Airlines headquarters and labor unions: • If lightning is detected within 50-mi radius, alert status is activated; 28

• If lightning detected within 25-mi radius, aircraft are grounded and preparations begin to clear ramp personnel; • If lightning is detected within a 10-mi radius, strobe lights and electronic flight information display system (EFIDS) are automatically activated and the ramp is cleared of per- sonnel; and • If lightning is beyond 50-mi radius, then normal activity. Note: unions had requested increase from 7 mi to 10 mi and installation of EFIDS. United Parcel Service—Louisville Only UPS default operating rules are as follows: • Provide a pre-alert to all personnel when lightning is within 12 mi; • Ban fueling when lightning is within 5 mi; and • Ban ramp operations when lightning is within 3 mi. These rules can be modified by local station operating management depending on the history of storm events at each airport and the distances that ramp personnel need to cover to reach an area of safety. These rules can also be amended by time of year, to account for differing storm characteristics. The aircraft mechanics union has expressed concern with respect to lightning issues and encourages the use of “reliable systems” to support decision making. Notification Process Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT) Fully automated system based on customized software that activates • Master alarm distribution system (MADS) at CLT Opera- tions Control Center (OCC), • RAD system at airlines’ operations center and North Carolina Air National Guard, and • Red/yellow/green traffic signals for ramp vehicles. The CLT OCC notifies general aviation and fixed base operator by telephone. No audible alarms are sounded. Chicago-O’Hare International Airport (ORD) • Advises ORD staff by radio and telephone. • Does not alert airlines or other airport tenants. Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport (DFW) DFW Operations Communications Center initiates radio calls to staff and coordinates with American Airlines ramp tower staff. Denver International Airport (DEN) DEN Communications Center has a briefing phone hotlinked to airlines, air traffic control tower, terminal radar control center (TRACON), aircraft fuelers, caterers, cargo operators, and the DEN Public Affairs Department, which uses a phone-tree to contact other DEN property ten- ants and terminal tenants. DEN field staff are contacted by radio. Orlando International Airport (MCO) Fully automated system based on customized software that activates • MADS at MCO Communications Room; and • RAD system at MCO Operations, participating airlines’ op- erations, and 13 locations in Terminal A and Terminal B. No visual alarms are installed. MCO field staff are contacted by radio, but not always reached. Aircraft fuelers are not served by RAD system; instead, they rely on wireless data transmission from MCO Communica- tions Room. Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) PHX Communications Center initiates a 800 MHz radio all-call to field staff. • Airlines and ramp users are not notified. • No visual or audible alarms are activated. Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) • Warning lights in sets of yellow and red are strategically placed on all four wings of the airside terminal, the fin- gers of the E-gates, and the hangars. At least two sets of warning lights are visible from anywhere on the aircraft ramps. • Radio calls are made to all PIT staff. • Automated telephone calls are made to certain tenants. • PIT hosts a lightning warning committee three times per year to review procedures and appropriate actions. 29

Tampa International Airport (TPA) Fully automated system based on customized software that activates • MADS at TPA Communications Center, • RAD system at participating airlines’ operations, and • Remote enunciators (horn and beacon) at participating airline airsides A, C, E, and F; at A baggage sort; and at landside terminal baggage makeup. American Airlines—DFW Only American Airlines’ fully automated system activates strobe lights and ramp information displays at all gate positions. The DFW Operations Communications Center is telephoned, and advice is provided to other airlines and tenants in re- sponse to direct queries. Northwest Airlines—Systemwide (eight airports) Northwest Airlines’ notification process includes • Activating blue lights at ramp locations, • Initiating radio and telephone calls to notify other North- west personnel, and • Advising air traffic control tower operators. United Airlines—ORD Only United’s notification system consists of • An alarm activated at station manager’s office, which must be acknowledged; • 800 MHz radio call to employees who are unable to see strobe lights or EFIDS; • Radio and telephone calls to fuelers, caterers, air freight, and other ramp operators that support United operations; and • A Blackberry message to vendor contractors. United Parcel Service—Louisville Only When the WSI system signals a lightning event, ramp oper- ations center (RCC) personnel manually activate a radio communications system that blocks all frequencies for intra- airline use to a receive-only mode. A voice message announces a pre-alert, fuel ban, or operations ban. Deficiencies and Effectiveness Respondents made the following comments regarding notification deficiencies and effectiveness. Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT) Satisfied with the system in place. Airlines rely on CLT for alarm notification through the automated system (RAD system). Those airlines that are not provided with RAD system generally follow the lead of the hub carrier, USAirways. Chicago-O’Hare International Airport (ORD) System and program in place does not allow for identifying the location of lightning strikes. Airlines, primarily American and United, operate independent lightning detection and warning systems. Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport (DFW) Relies on system installed by American Airlines, which activates flashing strobes at terminal facilities and hangars. American Airlines telephones the primary fixed base operator. Other airlines and ramp users follow the lead of American Airlines. However, these ramp users apply independent judg- ment as to stop/restart activity. FedEx and UPS may have independent lightning detection and warning systems for their use. Denver International Airport (DEN) The contract weather observer in the Ramp B tower initiates the lightning advisory, warning, or “secure” message based primarily on visual reference. This can generate an earlier than necessary notification. The observer would benefit from the use of newer technology equipment. Orlando International Airport (MCO) Prefers current arrangement, which provides a central location for data inputs and alarm notification. Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) Notification system is adequate for PHX personnel. How- ever, there is no communication with airlines or other airport tenants. Unsure how these tenants make stop/restart decisions when lightning threatens. Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) Airlines and other airport tenants generally follow lead of primary carrier, USAirways, but there are deviations in application. Airlines or other tenants have not installed inde- pendent lightning detection and warning systems. 30

Tampa International Airport (TPA) Some users allow for more time than the system suggests to restart ramp activity despite 5-min built-in delay. The warnings provided by TPA are advisory only. Airlines and other tenants make independent stop/restart decisions that can vary among them. American Airlines—DFW Only No deficiencies in their operations. System in place at DFW is the most advanced of those used in other American Airlines stations with at least 30 daily flights. A remote display system may be leased at other airports where such capability exists as generally provided by the airport owner. Northwest Airlines—Systemwide (eight airports) None noted. Other airlines tend to follow Northwest Air- lines lead at airports where it is the primary carrier. FedEx has an independent lightning detection and warning system at Memphis International Airport, TN. United Airlines—ORD Only No deficiencies noted; no deaths, injuries, or loss of equip- ment in past 5 years. Noticed that other airlines at ORD use differing risk threshold levels. United Parcel Service—Louisville Only Concerned about reliance on totally automated systems, which are described as often being overly cautious. This gen- erates ramp activity stoppages that can be expensive to their time-sensitive operations. Standardization Respondents made the following comments regarding standardization of lightning detection and warning system technologies and practices. Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT) Due to the uniqueness of each airport, the process does not lend itself to standardization. Chicago-O’Hare International Airport (ORD) Airlines had requested a central system operated by ORD. Under the advice of legal counsel, however, ORD has declined due to liability concerns. Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport (DFW) Prefers a single system for airport and tenants to rely upon. Could be implemented on a cost-share basis as defined in a new operating lease. Denver International Airport (DEN) Favors a common approach to issuance of lightning threats at airports. Orlando International Airport (MCO) Some tenants have requested that MCO make the stop/ restart decision. However, MCO has resisted because of lia- bility concerns. Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) Believes that liability issues will limit implementation of central system. Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) Does not believe this is a significant issue. Airlines and unions usually have differing points of view as to stop/restart ramp activities. Tampa International Airport (TPA) The lightning detection and warning system at TPA has evolved over time, and the airlines have participated with TPA staff in deciding best practices, type and location of equipment to be installed, and the alarm level thresholds. Nonetheless, adherence is voluntary, and airlines and others with ramp access exercise autonomy in deciding whether to stop ramp activity and when to restart. Standardization of the system can be a goal, but in practice is not achievable due to the variances in airline and ramp user policies and business models. American Airlines—DFW Only American Airlines’ risk levels have been regarded as too con- servative by some airlines. Inasmuch as they have not standard- ized a system for their other airport stations, standardization would seem to be even more impractical for other users. Views liability concerns as overriding justification for a central system. Northwest Airline—Systemwide (eight airports) Supports a single system provided by the airport, with establishment and operating costs included in airline and 31

other user leases. Users would execute a waiver with respect to the accuracy of the data provided, acknowledge such in- formation as advisory, and recognize that they have respon- sibility for its application to their operating decisions. United Airlines—ORD Only Supports a single system provided all users can agree to the risk levels and associated responses. United Parcel Service—Louisville Only Supports the installation of lightning detection and warn- ing systems by the airport, but users must have flexibility in the interpretation and application of the data. Recognizes that each airport has a different operational environment, distances between activity centers (cargo terminals versus air- line passenger terminal complexes), and that meteorological conditions and lightning climatology also differ from airport to airport. Survey Observations The preceding information yields several points of interest for each category of investigation. Lightning Detection Equipment With the exception of one airport (DEN) and one airline (UPS), all the airports and airlines contacted utilized a light- ning detection system complemented with one or two EFMs. Those employing the Vaisala TWX1200 (or predecessor ver- sions) or other weather monitoring systems also obtain the feed from the NLDN. Weather Data Support Systems Each of the airports has access to other sources of weather data on which to base their decisions about stopping and restarting aircraft ramp activities. There is variability in the use of such weather data sources that may be airport-owned or readily obtained from tenants. For example, airports with operations communications centers have television news broadcasts continuously turned on and can thus monitor the Weather Channel and other programs when warranted. AM and FM radio broadcasts are also readily available at these centers. In addition, links to weather radar displays, contract services, and regular telephone contact with airline station operations personnel are employed. Airline station managers may have some of these sources onsite and also can contact their flight dispatch and operations centers for impending weather data that could affect their specific flight activity. Threat and Risk Levels Decisions to more aggressively monitor lightning poten- tials, stop ramp activity, and restart operations have been made by all the airports and airlines surveyed. There is variability in the threat and risk levels, and there is also an element of judg- ment, especially with respect to restarting ramp activities. It is interesting to note that airport- and airline-defined threat and risk levels focus on the distances within which a lightning strike occurs and, at times, when the EFMs reach their alarm threshold limits. Ramp restart levels usually include a period of time during which no lightning events occur within a specified distance. The decision to restart ramp activity varies among the users surveyed and highlights the subjectivity employed. Use of the “30-30 rule,” which suggests that outdoor activities be limited or curtailed whenever a lightning strike is detected within 6 mi and within the past 30 min, does not appear to be employed in practice. The threat and risk levels are determined by consideration of the following two primary factors: • Typical direction of thunderstorm movements and passage time, and • Input from labor unions representing the interests of those operating on the ramp Notification Process The responses to questions about means by which airport, airline, and other tenants are advised of pending, onsite, and passing lightning events reflected the greatest degree of vari- ability. Airports were focused on contacting their personnel by radio communication. This includes those personnel oper- ating in open areas on the airport distant from terminal facil- ities, such as those maintaining airport grounds or operating heavy and noisy machinery. Most airports also shared their lightning detection outputs on an advisory basis to the air- lines and other tenants that have ramp access, such as fuelers, caterers, and aircraft cleaning crews. Audible and visual alarms were used at some airports. Other airports have purposefully avoided the use of these means of notification and rely on “all- call” or direct telephone contacts. Other airports have installed remote alarm units at airline operating areas in accordance with lease agreements. One airport (ORD) has a policy of not advis- ing any tenant of lightning events because of liability concerns. Airlines act to notify their staff, and they accomplish this by one or more actions involving visual alarms (beacons at 32

gates and work areas, electronic message displays at the ramp/ passenger boarding area, telephone, and pager.) At all airports contacted, it is common practice and a natu- ral tendency for all airlines to follow the lead of the primary air carrier, especially if that airline has invested resources to facilitate its decision making. This accounts, in part, for the variability in stop/restart times among multiple airlines oper- ating at an airport. In addition, airport terminal areas can encompass very large land masses, and airlines are generally grouped in certain areas. This also contributes to the variance observed among airline operators. Airline business models (i.e., quick-turn or more traditional layover times), availabil- ity of visual aircraft docking guidance systems, and union agreements are other factors that influence stop/restart work decisions for ramp activities. Observed Deficiencies and Effectiveness The airports and airlines contacted were satisfied with the equipment installed and the warning notification proce- dures they have implemented. Some have upgraded their systems to take advantage of new technologies and have mod- ified their threat and risk levels to reflect a longer time history of events to aid in their decision making. The technology used either by airports or by airlines is meeting the need to protect life and property on the ramp during lightning events. Whether the airport or the airline, or both, make the investment in lightning detection and warn- ing equipment, ramp activities are managed individually and are generally consistently applied. Although data on lightning strike injuries at airport ramps do not appear to be available, those airports and airlines contacted have noted a decline in injury occurrences. Standardization Opinions varied on the value of standardizing lightning detection and warning system technologies and their imple- mentation. A majority of airports and airlines contacted expressed that a single system serving all users could be vi- able and funded through lease terms and conditions. Yet they also noted that the stop/restart activity decisions could not be uniformly applied. Furthermore, liability issues would likely govern any decision for industry standardization. Conclusions It is said that lightning does not strike twice in the same place. This can also apply to the use and implementation of lightning detection and warning systems at airports: No two airports are alike, and a “one size fits all” approach does not appear to be viable. Airport geographical settings, weather phenomena characteristics, airport facilities layout, airline business models and operating procedures, labor union agree- ments, legal liability issues, and cost allocation processes are just some of the primary factors that do not lend themselves to standardization. What has been learned is that the technology is working, is relied upon, and serves a useful means to make decisions about ramp operations. The industry has focused on distance out and time since last event to establish bases that govern stopping and restarting ramp activities, respectively, and these seem practical and useful. Data on deaths, injuries, loss of property, and downtime caused by lightning events at airports does not appear to be maintained in a common database. Contacts with the Occu- pational Health and Safety Administration, Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Weather Service, NOAA, National Transportation Safety Board, and FAA did not yield any database of aircraft ramp incidents or accidents related to lightning strikes. Individual industry members may log lightning events and losses, including downtime; how- ever, industrywide data that can be utilized for standardiza- tion or other purposes are not available. In the chapters that follow, the MDA Federal team will ex- amine these parameters, attempt to identify the essential technology that should be employed, evaluate if and how data related to lightning events and losses may be collected and reported on an industrywide basis, and establish a basis for determining a benefit/cost relationship for implementation of a lightning detection and warning system. The means by which airports and their tenants use the information devel- oped by these technologies appears, however, to withstand standardization at this time. 33