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.
48 9.1 Conclusions Safety Management Systems (SMSs) and Wildlife hazard management (WHM) programs are easily integrated; both are founded on formal processes and documentation that ⢠Assess risk through a Safety Risk Management (SRM) component. ⢠Develop controls and mitigations, and review data and results on an ongoing basis through a Safety Assurance component. Incorporation of the Safety Policy and Safety Promotion components of the SMS supports the WHM program through management commitments, safety objectives, training, and communi- cation. The effort to integrate the two initiatives is a natural progression to improved safety that is founded on quality data and analysis, and that emphasizes prioritized, preventive mitigations that are reassessed on a recurring basis in a continuous improvement process. ACRP Project 04-17 was initiated to help start the process of integrating airport WHM pro- grams into their larger SMS processes. An integral part of that integration process is to provide a standardized means of determining risk levels for various hazardous wildlife species that pose safety and economic costs to airport and aircraft operations. Although many tools are available to objectively and subjectively determine risk as part of each airportâs continuous improvement processes, a core of this project was the development of a tool to assist in those efforts. The research team produced the Wildlife Hazard Management Risk Assessment Tool (WHaMRAT) as a key component of that process. The WHaMRAT models wildlife and aircraft operations together with the airport environment and mitigation efforts to determine an Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score that can be used to determine the current state of the wildlife risk at each air- port, and importantly, can be used over time for trending analysis as a data feedback mechanism in the continuous improvement process as is the goal of the overall SMS. The team made every effort to remove subjectivity in the model inputs and behavior and provide airports with an empirical and objective means of measuring progress in their WHM programs. The very nature of wildlife behavior and the means by which wildlife data is collected and reported on airports make complete objectivity impossible to determine, but if standard protocols and data entry procedures are followed, the model can be used with consistent bias to provide valuable current state and trending information in an adaptive management strategy. This tool can be used as an important component of airport WHM programs and is a perfect fit with an airportâs SMS. 9.2 Suggested Research The research team believes that additional research would be helpful to more accurately quan- tify wildlife risk on airports. Wildlife Risk (commonly applied as Wildlife Severity à Likelihood of Strike) is extremely difficult to completely and objectively quantify because of the numerous applications and variables involved. C H A P T E R 9 Conclusions and Suggested Research
Conclusions and Suggested Research 49 There is a growing understanding in aviation that wildlife strike severity is best represented by body mass because it is influential in determining the potential for damage to aircraft when wildlife strikes occur. Unfortunately, the interchangeable use of the terms severity and hazard is common- place in aviation, which can lead to potential confusion. Severity is most influenced by the magni- tude of the hazard, not merely by its presence. The team suggests a universal application of Wildlife Severity that incorporates an index of body mass as the primary factor in determining aviation risk. A similar concern affects the use of the word risk. Again, the terms hazard and risk are com- monly and improperly used interchangeably, leading to further confusion of terminology in the aviation industry. As universally accepted and as applied to this project, risk is the combination of the presence of a hazard and the likelihood of its being encountered. The magnitude of the risk, or its relative impact, is further determined by the severity of the encountered hazard. The likelihood of encountering a potential hazard continues to be the most difficult parameter to objectively measure, in particular when addressing highly variable conditions such as the presence and abundance of wildlife. Determining the likelihood of a wildlife strike is extremely complicated. This factor is strongly influenced by objective measures of wildlife abundance; however, other confounding factors such as behavior, proximity to airport operating surfaces, and temporal varia- tion, make definite determinations of actual Likelihood of Strike difficult. In addition, data derived from wildlife strikes recorded in the FAA Wildlife Strike Database are highly valuable, but are most likely incomplete and highly variable, as seen in differences in reporting rates and data collection methodologies of Part 139-certificated versus general aviation airports. Research to develop tools, methodologies, and/or technologies to reduce subjectivity and create more objective assessments of strike likelihoods would be of great help. These can include more rigorous ecological data col- lection protocols on airports and even the use of remotely sensed data to reduce the inherent bias in current determinations of wildlife presence and abundance on and around airports. Research and analysis of strike data and risk assessment protocols are strongly suggested to address these disparities and to ensure a common terminology is used when discussing aviation risk. In developing the WHaMRAT, the team attempted to best account for Severity and Likelihood of Strikes in the most objective manner possible given data and analysis constraints. However, more details are most likely necessary for each variable and should be further evaluated. In addi- tion, further testing of this model is necessary for user airports to confirm its functionality, validity, application, and accuracy using real-world data over a period of time greater than this initial effort and from a much larger number of airports that represent both FAA 139-certificated and general aviation airports throughout all FAA regions. It is further suggested that follow-on research be conducted on the actual implementation of the model once it is fielded and tested in such opera- tional environments. An added benefit of future research would be to conduct a similar test of the WHaMRAT as part of an airportâs formal, implemented SMS and as part of airportsâ requirements to annually assess their WHM Plans (WHMPs) and WHM programs. The test would assess whether using tools such as the WHaMRAT in conjunction with a manual or automated SRM process would be compatible or would create confusion or inaccuracies in risk assessments and adaptive management strategies. A significant future research opportunity for data management and sharing would be to develop a web-based interface for airport data entry. The species lists by guild and severity data in the WHaMRAT, as detailed in the relevant attachments in the User Guide (Appendix C) could serve as a means to supplement the FAA Wildlife Strike Database, including future opportunities to trend data from one system to the other. The ability to collect detailed data would certainly assist in future proactive and predictive analysis specific to mitigation measures.
