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.
23 This chapter identifies both the key roles and the responsi- bilities proposed by the literature review and information collected from the participant surveys and interviews. A common issue is present in both the relevant literature provided for this study and the responses from participants from the survey. This issue is the loosely defined duties, roles, and responsibilities that are currently in place for personnel from airports, airlines, and GSPs. As previously mentioned, safety at U.S. airports is a shared responsibility among the FAA, airlines, and airports, but commonly accepted duties that promote a unified safety culture are severely lacking. Cabrera et al. (1997) suggested that safety climates can be an optimum indicator in evaluating SMSs as well as change-oriented programs. Safety attitude of man- agement, efficient performance feedback, well-designed and developed motivation strategies, the existence of an adequate decision-making process, company philosophy toward safety as a priority, optimum upward and downward communica- tion, and good reporting systems have all been identified from the early 1990s onward as being components of a safe organization (Cabrera et al. 1997). Company policies toward safety, emphasis on training or general safety strategies, and risk perception are several of the identified dimensions that aide personnel in promoting a safe organizational operating environment Based on the synthesis survey, 86.2% of airports are respon- sible for the oversight and responsibility of the ramp/apron area, which includes exclusive use space, jet bridges, and ramps; however, only 62.1% conduct regular ramp/apron safety meetings with tenants. Of the airports that conduct ramp safety meetings, 66.7% are monthly, 23.8% are quarterly and 9.5% are conducted as needed. Gaps in management oversight may establish a reactive means to ramp safety instead of pro- active mitigation. To promote cohesion in the administration of safety practices, 65.5% of surveyed airports conduct safety inspections on the ramp or in the baggage make-up areas. Another 10.3% inspect common use gates and baggage areas, leaving 24.1% not inspecting any of the identified areas. Many responsibilities in the non-movement area were cited as airline and GSP areas of responsibility. To promote knowledge on current safety situations and concerns, management utilizes a variety of practices through- out multiple levels in the organization. Both airlines and GSPs answered survey questions pertaining to who within the orga- nization was responsible for safety information dissemination at the national and local level. Responses ranged from vice presidents and CEOs at the national level to ground service supervisors, union safety representatives, and station safety managers/supervisors at the local level. No matter the title or rank, each stakeholder used multiple methods to inform staff of safety concerns. These methods included audit find- ings, reports, onsite visits, Line Operations Safety Audits, daily briefings, bulletins, e-mails and review boards. The methods used by airlines and GSPs when providing notice to staff of safety concerns are presented in Figures 8 and 9. To further promote the investment to safety as an organi- zational duty, management divides hazard reporting respon- sibilities across the entire workforce. This collaboration of duties helps build a safety culture by increasing staff aware- ness and by spreading the responsibility for incident identifi- cation among all participants. By engaging in nonpunitive safety reporting, the integrity of the reporting system can be maximized. Based on the survey, five airlines and all four GSPs engage in nonpunitive reporting practices. The remain- ing two airline respondents reported that they depended on the type of safety violation. Implementing this type of reporting system generates trust in the individuals providing the infor- mation to promote frequent reporting of hazards, incidents, accidents, errors, and near misses. Participants in the survey reported on several practices used to promote safety oversight. Providing access to multi- ple techniques encourages reporting and further removes the reluctance to submit information. A visual depiction of the reporting options given to airline and GSP personnel to pro- mote their role in hazard reporting is provided in Figures 10 and 11. All respondents noted that the most common form of reporting was directly to a manger or lead personnel. Com- mon suggestions from participants outlined that no matter the system used most, it is important for management to train and educate personnel on their roles and responsibilities per- taining to safety oversight and hazard reporting. Approach- ing safety oversight with reporting practices as outlined previously reduces the total number of accidents and incidents by decreasing the rate of safety deficiencies on the ramp (FSF 2011). CHAPTER FOUR DUTIES, ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND OVERSIGHT
24 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Audit findings and reports Onsite visits LOSAs Fines Other Depends on the location Co un t Airline Formal Methods to Inform Staff of Safety Concerns None FIGURE 8 Airline methods to inform safety concerns. [What formal method does your (Airline) company use to provide notice to inform staff of safety concerns? Select all that apply.] LOSAs = Line Operations Safety Audits. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Audit findings and reports Onsite visits LOSAs Fines All Depends on the location Other Co un t GSP Formal Methods to Inform Staff of Safety Concerns None None None FIGURE 9 Safety Concerns. [âWhat formal method does your (GSP) company use to provide notice to inform staff of safety concerns?â] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Report to manager or lead Submit a written report Submit a phone report Submit an electronic report Report anonymously Co un t Airline Methods to Report Hazards/Unsafe Conditions FIGURE 10 Airline methods to report hazards/unsafe conditions. [How do staff (Airline) report hazards or unsafe work conditions? Select all that apply.]
25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Report to manager or lead Submit a written report Submit a phone report Submit an electronic report Report anonymously All of the above Co un t GSP Methods to Report Hazards/Unsafe Conditions FIGURE 11 GSP methods to report hazards/unsafe conditions. [How do staff (GSP) report hazards or unsafe work conditions? Select all that apply.]
