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.
Airport operators, on a whole, have taken the subject of run- way incursion prevention and safety very seriously. Airfield driver training programs are indicative of the willingness of the airport community to keep the aviation system safe and efficient. Based on the survey results, there is no lack of driver training for those authorized to drive on an airportâs movement area. For those driving on the non-movement area only, most airport operators have also initiated driver train- ing programs, although such programs may be limited in scope. Virtually all commercial service airports have an air- field driver training program for at least the employees that access the movement area of the airfield. Even many of the general aviation airports, especially those with the greater number of operations, have initiated some type of driver training program. Many commercial service airports also have driver training programs for people restricted to the non-movement area of the airport. It is estimated that at the larger air carrier airports there may be as many as 20,000 individuals licensed to drive on the non-movement areas. Training this number of people can be a daunting task. Some airports have allowed the air carriers and the fixed-base oper- ators to train their own employees. Good practice would be for the airport authority to retain oversight of the program and audit it periodically. The survey showed that this is done at many but not all airports. The curriculum taught in airfield driver training pro- grams is relatively standard. For non-movement area driver training, it normally consists of topics that one would expect, given the circumstances of operating on ramps and aprons. These topics include speed limits, the meaning of the non- movement area boundary lines and their locations, yielding or giving right-of-way to aircraft, and the dangers of aircraft jet blast. For movement area driving programs, the topics normally include runway and taxiway signing and marking, as well as airfield lighting, critical areas for instrument navi- gation equipment, and proper radio communications. At air- ports that also have low visibility operations, the curricu- lum includes the principles of surface movement guidance and controls systems and the lighting and marking that are required for such low visibility operation. If an airport also has land and hold short operations, the markings and light- ing for this type of operation are included in the training program. Many of the airports that responded to the survey already have implemented recurrent driver training programs for both the non-movement and the movement areas of the air- port. These training sessions for recurrent training, usually not as long as initial training, last about 1 to 1.5 hours. More use of computer-based learning most likely will help reduce the overall cost of maintaining a recurrent training program and will make it easier for employees working at the airport to receive the training. Contractors working on an airport are a challenge to the air- port operator. In many cases there are subcontractors who work alongside of the contractors. Large equipment is used exten- sively and the work may take the contractors/subcontractors close to active runways and taxiways. It is relatively easy to get disoriented and to move outside of the approved work area. It is also difficult to keep track of the many workers and ensure that they have the appropriate knowledge to work on an airfield. Although many airport operators use escort ser- vices for contractors, this does not guarantee that an errant contractor may not cause a runway incusion. From the results of the survey, one can conclude that the airport operators have done a good job in developing driver training courses. The same subjects and methods appear to be used across airport categories. Regardless of whether the air- port is a large hub primary airport or a non-hub commercial service airport, the training follows the same general trends. Further research could include follow-up studies to be done comparing costs of training personnel using computer- based programs with classroom-type training. Training pro- grams of this magnitude do not come without a cost to the airport operators and to the tenants. This research could also focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the different types of training and determine if one is more beneficial than another. Also, with the recent emphasis on ramp and apron safety, further research may be needed to study the viability of insti- tuting a voluntary reporting system for accidents and inci- dents that occur on ramps and aprons. In this way, it would be possible to get a better understanding of the magnitude of the dangers of operating on these areas of an airport as well as a better understanding of the causes of such problems. The Flight Safety Foundation estimates that 27,000 ramp acci- dents and incidents occur worldwide every year at a cost of $10 billion annually. Driver training is only one way to help reduce that number and cost. CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS 20