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.
45 This study found that a wide variation exists among airports in the practices, techniques, and tools used to conduct inspec- tions for Foreign Object Debris (FOD) and wildlife hazards. Furthermore, there was no readily available synthesis of cur- rent airport inspection practices for FOD and wildlife hazards from which airport operators could review and improve their own inspection procedures. This synthesis (1) presents current airport inspection practices regarding FOD, and (2) presents the range of technology and equipment currently available to airports for inspecting, detecting, removing, and document- ing FOD. The following findings and common practices were discovered. Inspection â¢ Most airports rely on human/visual inspection for FOD. â¢ Most airports inspect movement areas (runways and taxi- ways) more frequently than non-movement areas. Detection â¢ Most airports rely on manual detection of FOD by human/ visual means, without any type of FOD technology in use. â¢ Most airports have some type of FOD management pro- gram in place. â¢ Those few airports with some sort of FOD detection tech- nology in use believe that the benefits either exceed or are worthy of the cost. Removal â¢ Most airports use both human/visual means and either mechanized or non-mechanized means to remove FOD. â¢ Of the mechanized means in use, most airports use power sweepers and vacuum systems. Of the non-mechanized means in use, most airports use magnetic bars. â¢ Of those airports using mechanical means to remove FOD, most believe these means are very useful. â¢ The most common type of FOD removed on paved move- ment areas is runway and taxiway materials, including concrete chunks, rubber joint materials, and paint chips. â¢ The most common type of FOD removed on ramp areas is apron items, including paper and plastic debris, lug- gage parts, and debris from ramp equipment. Documentation â¢ Most airports document FOD most of the time FOD is removed. â¢ When documenting FOD, most airports record the loca- tion of the FOD, the date and time FOD were detected and/or retrieved, a description of the FOD, and the name of personnel investigating and removing the FOD. â¢ Most airports do not currently utilize an electronic data- base for documenting FOD. â¢ Of those airports that do utilize an electronic database, the most common criterion for analysis is location of FOD. Training, Awareness, and Management â¢ Most airports utilize FOD letters, notices, and/or bul- letins to enhance awareness of their FOD management program. â¢ According to participating airports, only airport oper- ations personnel, airport maintenance personnel, and airport management place a high level of importance on FOD management. â¢ At most airports, air carriers (if present) and FBOs play an active part in FOD management. â¢ At most airports, the FOD management program is han- dled by someone as part of their existing job duties. â¢ Most airports do not have a formal FOD training program. â¢ Most airports ensure the quality of their FOD manage- ment program by the use of management oversight. â¢ If additional resources were made available for FOD management, most airports would acquire equipment/ technology for the detection and/or removal of FOD. â¢ When asked to share thoughts on how FOD management could be improved at their airport, most airports would like to see a better structured FOD management program, as well as the acquisition of technology to aid in FOD detection. At small, general aviation airports, a FOD management pro- gram will typically have a fairly simple structure. At larger, commercial service airports, it may involve many airlines and likely employ a full-time FOD manager. In essence, the FOD management program will be commensurate with the com- plexity of the airport. Regardless, when a FOD program is developed to meet the unique needs of the airport, damage caused by FOD will be reduced, which benefits not only the airport, but users, tenants, and the entire aviation industry. CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS
In addition to common practices, the following list pro- vides practices that were identified by airports as successful for their FOD Management Program. Inspection and Detection â¢ FOD checklist for inspection personnel. â¢ FOD event/incident form to record specific conditions related to FOD removed (that would later be entered into an electronic FOD database with photo). â¢ Integration of FOD management with Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and Safety Management System. â¢ Regular, proactive FOD inspections conducted visu- ally (ICAO standard is four times per day) focusing on both movement and non-movement areas (may be part of a self-inspection as required by Part 139). â¢ Reactive inspections as FOD is reported by pilots, Air Traffic Control, and others. â¢ Supplement manual inspections with automated detec- tion technology. Removal â¢ FOD containers strategically placed throughout ramp/ gate areas. â¢ Closure of pavement as necessary to prevent aircraft operations on a contaminated surface. â¢ Proactive removal of FOD with the use of non- mechanized equipment such as tow-behind friction mats and magnetic bars or with the use of mechanized equipment such as power sweepers and vacuum systems. Documentation and Analysis of Data â¢ Electronic database with records of FOD removed from movement areas (runways and taxiways). â¢ Photographs of FOD removed from movement areas (runways and taxiways). â¢ Regular analysis of data to reveal trends in types of FOD, locations of FOD, and possible generators of FOD, as 46 well as any reductions in FOD removed to gain insight into the effectiveness of the airportâs promotion and awareness program. Training and promotion â¢ Commitment from management to the FOD manage- ment program and the goal of continuous improvement in the area of FOD prevention at the airport. â¢ Tenant involvement and participation. â¢ FOD committee, with regular meetings, to establish pol- icy, guidelines, and goals. â¢ Regular FOD walks, with refreshments and group pho- tos, as well as awards for the most FOD collected or special item(s) found presented at an awards ceremony. â¢ Promotion and awareness program involving posters, t-shirts, bulletins, banners, and stickers, as well as regu- lar activities to maintain interest and participation in the FOD program, such as contests and clean gate awards. â¢ Training of personnel, including airline and contrac- tor personnel, of good housekeeping practices and the emphasis on FOD prevention. Although many questions were answered regarding the manner in which airports manage FOD, additional ques- tions surfaced as well. Below are suggested areas of further research. â¢ As FOD walks and other proactive FOD mitigation measures began in the military; additional research could be conducted with this population. â¢ As airports begin acquiring FOD detection technology, follow-up studies could be conducted whereby the expe- riences of these airports are shared with the community of airports nationwide. â¢ Research that might lead to a guidebook to assist airports in developing and implementing a FOD management program. â¢ Uses of FOD detection sensors for additional applica- tions in the airport environment.